Christian Bockstaller

Use of agro-ecological indicators for the evaluation of farming systems

For the development of integrated arable farming systems (IAFS), tools are needed to evaluate the achievement of agronomic and environmental objectives, in order to optimize the systems. A set of agro-ecological indicators (AEI) is proposed. These indicators estimate the impact of cultivation practices on the agrosystem and its environment. AEI are aimed, first of all, at being used as decision aid tools, to help farmers to adapt their cultivation practices to IAFS requirements, from one cropping year to the next. So far, seven indicators have been elaborated for the evaluation of farming systems: crop diversity, crop succession, pesticide, nitrogen, phosphorus, organic matter and irrigation. The calculation method for the organic matter and pesticide indicators is presented. Possibilities for use of the AEI at the farm and field level, for farmers and decision makers are given with data from a network of 17 commercial arable farms. The elaboration of a single aggregated indicator is discussed.

How to validate environmental indicators

Abstract Different types of environmental indicators have been developed to meet the increasing need of assessment instruments of environmental impacts. As any tool developed by research, indicators must be elaborated according to a scientific approach. One of the important steps of this elaboration is the validation. The overall objective of this paper is to present a methodological framework to validate indicators. According to the definition of an indicator, three kinds of validation are presented: the “design validation” to evaluate if the indicators are scientifically founded; the “output validation” to assess the soundness of the indicator outputs, and, the “end use validation” to be sure the indicator is useful and used as a decision aid tool. The output validation is inspired from validation of simulation models, which is shortly reviewed. Because indicators differ from models in many cases, validation procedures commonly used in modelling have to be adapted.

Assessment of energy use in arable farming systems by means of an agro-ecological indicator: the energy indicator

Abstract Efficient energy use by the agriculture sector is one of the conditions for sustainable agriculture because it allows financial savings, fossil resources preservation and air pollution decrease. We propose an Energy indicator ( I En ) to evaluate environmental impacts due to energy consumption of arable farming systems to help farmers to manage their energy inputs at the field level according to the guidelines of integrated agriculture. I En is based on the energetic analysis of four types of energy: two for indirect energy (pesticides and fertilisers) and two for direct energy (machinery and irrigation systems). In a second step, the assessed values of energy consumption are converted by means of an abacus into a mark between 0 and 10. I En needs only data that are available on farms or easily assessed, and will be implemented with a set of seven other agro-ecological indicators to assess environmental sustainability of farms.

Comparison and evaluation of eight pesticide environmental risk indicators developed in Europe and recommendations for future use

Original article can be found at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01678809 Copyright Elsevier B.V. [Full text of this article is not available in the UHRA]

Agri-Environmental Indicators to Assess Cropping and Farming Systems: A Review

Environmental impacts of agriculture cannot be always assessed by using direct measurements. Since the 1990s, numerous agri-environmental indicators were developed to assess the adverse effects of cropping and farming systems in the environment, such as water pollution, soil erosion, and emission of greenhouse gases. Here we present the different types of indicators developed during the last decade and review the progress of the methods used for their development. The application of different groups of indicators is discussed and illustrated by examples in the fields of nitrogen losses and pesticide risk: (1) indicators based on a single or a combination of variables related to farmer practices, (2) indicators derived from operational or more complex simulation models assessing emissions of pollutants, and (3) measured indicators linked directly to environmental impacts. The nitrogen indicator (IN) of the INDIGO method and the MERLIN indicator will be presented and used to illustrate the methodological discussion. We show that a good identification of the end-users, of the practical objectives of the indicator, and of the spatial and temporal scales is essential and should be done at a preliminary step before designing the indicator itself. The possibilities of deriving an indicator from a model and of setting a reference value are discussed. Several methods are also presented to study the sensitivity and the validity of agri-environmental indicators. Finally, several practical recommendations are made. As only few data are usually available at the regional level, several simple indicators should be used for assessing a given impact at this level. When more detailed information is available, indicators based on operational models can be useful to analyse the effects of several factors related to soil, climate, and cropping system on an environmental impact. In experimental studies, we suggest using both measured indicators and model-based indicators.

Comparison of methods to assess the sustainability of agricultural systems. A review

Since the 1990s, numerous agri-environmental indicators and indicator-based methods have been developed to assess the adverse effects of cropping and farming systems such as water pollution by nitrates and pesticides, and gaseous emissions due to nitrogen inputs. This wealth of environmental indicators and assessment methods based on indicators raises issues on the quality of the methods and of the indicators, and on the relevancy of results. Evaluation and comparative studies are therefore needed to answer such issues. Here, we present four recent comparative studies selected for their illustrative value, first, to analyse the methodologies used for comparison of methods, and second, to highlight the main results of the four comparisons. The first study involves 23 indicators to address nitrate leaching. The second study involves 43 indicators to address pesticide risk. The third and fourth studies compare environmental assessment methods based on 4–5 indicators used in French and Upper Rhine plains (France, Germany and Switzerland). Both studies also compare the outputs of the methods and highlight the low degree of convergence between them. The approach proposed in the last study is the most elaborate among the four case studies. It could be used to develop a generic evaluation and comparison methodology. The review of those four case studies shows the need to formalise the methodology underlying any comparison work of indicators or evaluation methods.

Ex ante assessment of the sustainability of alternative cropping systems: implications for using multi-criteria decision-aid methods. A review

Sustainability is a holistic and complex multi-dimensional concept encompassing economic, social and environmental issues, and its assessment is a key step in the implementation of sustainable agricultural systems. Realistic assessments of sustainability require: (1) the integration of diverse information concerning economic, social and environmental objectives; and (2) the handling of conflicting aspects of these objectives as a function of the views and opinions of the individuals involved in the assessment process. The assessment of sustainability is therefore increasingly regarded as a typical decision-making problem that could be handled by multi-criteria decision-aid (MCDA) methods. However, the number and variability of MCDA methods are continually increasing, and these methods are not all equally relevant for sustainability assessment. The demands for such approaches are also rapidly changing, and faster ex ante assessment approaches are required, to address scales currently insufficiently dealt with, such as cropping system level. Researchers regularly carry out comparative analyses of MCDA methods and propose guidelines for the selection of a priori relevant methods for the assessment problem considered. However, many of the selection criteria used are based on technical/operational assumptions that have little to do with the specificities of ex ante sustainability assessment of alternative cropping systems. We attempt here to provide a reasoned comparative review of the main groups of MCDA methods, based on considerations related to those specificities. The following main guidelines emerge from our discussion of these methods: (1) decision rule-based and outranking qualitative MCDA methods should be preferred; (2) different MCDA tools should be used simultaneously, making it possible to evaluate and compare the results obtained; and (3) a relevantly structured group of decision-makers should be established for the selection of tool variants of the choosen MCDA methods, the design/choice of sustainability criteria, and the analysis and interpretation of the evaluation results.

MASC, a qualitative multi-attribute decision model for ex ante assessment of the sustainability of cropping systems

Realistic assessments of sustainability are often viewed as typical decision-making problems requiring multi-criteria decision-aid (MCDA) methods taking into account the conflicting objectives underlying the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability, and the different sources of knowledge representing them. Some MCDA-based studies have resulted in the development of sustainable agricultural systems, but the new challenges facing agriculture and the increasing unpredictability of their driving forces highlight the need for faster ex ante (‘Before-the-event’) assessment frameworks. These frameworks should also (i) provide a more realistic assessment of sustainability, by integrating a wider range of informal knowledge, via the use of qualitative information; (ii) address alternative scales, such as cropping system level, improving granularity for the handling of sustainability issues and (iii) target a larger panel of decision-makers and contexts. We describe here the MASC model, which is at the center of a framework addressing these objectives. The MASC model has at its core a decision tree that breaks the sustainability assessment decisional problem down into simpler units as a function of sustainability dimensional structure (economic, social and environmental), generating a vector of 32 holistic ‘mixed’ (quantitative and qualitative) elementary criteria rating cropping systems. The assessment process involves the calculation of these criteria, their homogenization into qualitative information for input into the model and their aggregation throughout the decision tree based on ‘If-Then’ decision rules, entered by the user. We present the model and describe its first implementation for the evaluation of four cropping systems generated from expert knowledge, and discuss its relevance to the objectives cited above. The MASC model has several advantages over existing methods, due to its ability to handle qualitative information, its transparency, flexibility and feasibility.

Reconciling Pesticide Reduction with Economic and Environmental Sustainability in Arable Farming

Reducing pesticide use is one of the high-priority targets in the quest for a sustainable agriculture. Until now, most studies dealing with pesticide use reduction have compared a limited number of experimental prototypes. Here we assessed the sustainability of 48 arable cropping systems from two major agricultural regions of France, including conventional, integrated and organic systems, with a wide range of pesticide use intensities and management (crop rotation, soil tillage, cultivars, fertilization, etc.). We assessed cropping system sustainability using a set of economic, environmental and social indicators. We failed to detect any positive correlation between pesticide use intensity and both productivity (when organic farms were excluded) and profitability. In addition, there was no relationship between pesticide use and workload. We found that crop rotation diversity was higher in cropping systems with low pesticide use, which would support the important role of crop rotation diversity in integrated and organic strategies. In comparison to conventional systems, integrated strategies showed a decrease in the use of both pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers, they consumed less energy and were frequently more energy efficient. Integrated systems therefore appeared as the best compromise in sustainability trade-offs. Our results could be used to re-design current cropping systems, by promoting diversified crop rotations and the combination of a wide range of available techniques contributing to pest management.

Evidence for farmers’ active involvement in co-designing citrus cropping systems using an improved participatory method

Agricultural policymakers are addressing the sustainable development issue by designing new agricultural systems. Farmers are ultimately asked to make deep changes at field scale. Designing cropping systems has previously been done using prototyping methodologies. Prototyping methodologies use a five-step designing process at field scale and request multicriteria analysis of the resulting prototypes. However, sustainable dynamics implies considering changes at larger scales, farm and region, as well as creating feedback and facilitating participation of all the stakeholders involved in the process. Here we studied citrus production in Guadeloupe, French West Indies, where farmers must reduce pesticide loads despite unresolved weed control issues. We designed the DISCS method, which stands for “participatory redesign and assess innovative cropping systems”, to improve classical prototyping methods by implementing a multi-scale, multi-stakeholder, participatory approach. Compared to classical prototyping methods, the DISCS method differs by implementing three progress loops, at experimental field, farm, and regional scales. Three categories of professional stakeholders are involved: farmers, researchers, and agricultural advisers, who are collectively in charge of designing and testing cropping system prototypes. In addition, local public stakeholders including representatives of state institutions are consulted. Progress is assessed using scale-specific sets of indicators. The DISCS method was applied to develop low-pesticide citrus cropping systems. Five weed control prototypes were jointly designed by citrus farmers and researchers, and two multicriteria assessment tools were built for use at the experimental station and on the farms. Results show that involved farmers transferred the new techniques to their own farms on their own initiative, thus spontaneously becoming pilot farmers. The DISCS method is therefore the result of a co-design process between farmers and researchers. The DISCS method creates an ongoing dynamic relationship between agricultural and public stakeholders to build a solution that can continuously be adjusted to stakeholders’ expectations.