Measurement & Assessment Tools Measurement & Assessment Tools for Sustainable Agriculture in the UKfor Sustainable Agriculture in the UK

Kathy Lewis & John TzilivakisKathy Lewis & John Tzilivakis

International Forum on Assessing International Forum on Assessing Sustainability in Agriculture Sustainability in Agriculture

16-17 March 2006 16-17 March 2006 Bern, SwitzerlandBern, Switzerland

Sustainable Agriculture

Food

Fibres Biomass

Livestock

Oils Landscape & Leisure

Habitats

Buffers & Filters

Rural Development

Environmental Impacts of Agriculture

Impacts are as diverse as the crops, processes & activities undertaken:

Energy & GWP

Water

Waste

Chemicals Biodiversity

Soils

Odours & Air quality

Natural resources

Landscape quality

Sustainability Assessments

Regional/Catchment evaluations

Farm/Field assessments

National/Europe policy level

Farmscale Tools

• Measuring & monitoring

• Auditing techniques - environmental, financial & general management

• Indicators

• Decision support tools

• Mathematical simulation & modelling systems

Farmscale Assessment Focus

Effect assessment

Single field

Rotation

Crop specific

Single activity

Season

Whole site

Downstream & off-farm

Measuring and Monitoring

• Soil analysis - N, P, K, OM, pH

• Record keeping - pesticides, nitrates, energy, water

• Waste disposal records

• Ecological monitoring - species counts

• Farm economics - net margins & balance sheets

• National surveys for benchmarking - pesticides & nitrates, water quality

Auditing Systems

• Voluntary self-assessment approach - paper based or electronic e.g. EMA, LEAF, ‘Crop Protection Management Plans (CPMPs)’

• Farm Assurance schemes e.g. Assured Produce, Assured British Meat.

• Regulatory Audits e.g. Whole Farm Appraisal (Defra), Environmental Management System for Farms (EMSF), HSE health and safety assessment.

Self Assessment Auditing - EMA

• Computer-based whole farm environmental management system for farms, funded by government and industry.

• Based on standard environmental management systems such as EMAS and ISO14001.

• Three operational modes auditing system based on mathematical models & scoring systems to assess environmental performance

decision support system for remediation

extensive integrated library - ADLib (www.adlib.ac.uk).

Step 1: Enter farm details & undertake a full audit

to identify environmental strengths and weaknesses

Step 3: Use the decision support system to identify

solutions to problems

Step 2: Use the library to identify best practice, regulations and data

Self Assessment Auditing - EMA

http://www.adlib.ac.uk

Self Assessment Auditing - EMA

Regulatory AuditingDefra’s Whole Farm Appraisal

• A long-term programme to develop an integrated access point to Defra and related agencies

• It is a CD & web-based self-assessment questionnaire with advice and guidance supplied from ADLib

• To provide an easy and efficient way for farmers to supply data and to ensure they are compliant with regulations

• Future releases will include single payment scheme applications, farm maps, tailored news and information, registration for regulations, help and guidance on catchment sensitive farming

• http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/wholefarm/

Farm Level Indicators

• In 2000 UK Defra published a suite of National Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture.• Policy tools - not appropriate at farm level • Parallel suite of indicators developed applicable at farm

level.• Data was presented by farm type, region, crops etc.• Message behind the indicators was the focus rather than the data itself.• Software was developed to allow farmers & growers to explore indicators & their values.

E.g. Fruit farm, Sussex

Fruit Farm in East Sussex

• Farm produces top fruit, hops & some soft fruit. It is owner-occupied. The orchards are irrigated with groundwater extracted from a borehole. The soil is predominately clay. There is a small woodland.• Several high priority indicators including:

Organic matter content of topsoils

Decision Support and Simulation Techniques

• Vary in sophistication from simple flowcharts to complex mathematical models• Usually focus on a specific activity or impact e.g. pesticide risk, nitrate fate, energy use• Often DSS and Models are combined offering decision support & interpretation on simulation results• More sophisticated systems may require user to have sound computer skills and may need the provision of training• When used independently they do not provide an integrated approach nor consider environmental trade-offs

Sustainability of the UK Strawberry Crop

• June-bearers and Everbearers• 20 typical production systems - protected/unprotected, with/without fumigation, soil/media grown, organic/traditional• 3 areas (Kent, E of England & W Midlands)• 3 habitat scenarios • Total of 180 different descriptions assessed for:-

• Energy use & GWP• N loss via leaching & denitrification• N & P balance & nutrient recycling• Water & waste efficiency • Fate & ecotoxicity of pesticides• Soil management & erosion• Net margin• Social impact - employment, visual aspects• Comparison with Spanish production

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 F

+P m

in (

first

cro

p)

1 F

+P c

lay

(firs

t cro

p)

1 F

+P (

sum

pl)

min

(fir

st c

rop)

1 F

+P (

sum

pl)

clay

(fir

st c

rop)

2 F

min

(fir

st c

rop)

2 F

(su

m p

l) m

in (

first

cro

p)

3 P

min

(fir

st c

rop)

4 m

in (

first

cro

p)

4 (n

o cr

op 1

st y

ear)

san

d (f

irst c

rop)

5 O

RG

P (

sum

pl)

min

(fir

st c

rop)

5 O

RG

P (

sum

pl)

FY

M c

lay

(firs

t cro

p)

6 O

RG

(su

m p

l) m

in (

first

cro

p)

7 P

EA

T P

tabl

e on

min

(fir

st c

rop)

7 P

EA

T P

rai

sed

bed

on c

lay

(firs

t cro

p)

8 P

EA

T ta

ble

on m

in (

first

cro

p)

8 P

EA

T r

aise

d be

d on

min

(fir

st c

rop)

9 C

OIR

P ta

ble

on c

lay

(firs

t cro

p)

9 C

OIR

P r

aise

d be

d on

cla

y (f

irst c

rop)

1 F

+P m

in (

two

crop

s)

1 F

+P c

lay

(tw

o cr

ops)

1 F

(su

m p

l) m

in (

two

crop

s)

1 F

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

2 F

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

2 F

(sum

pl)

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

3 P

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

4 m

in (

two

crop

s)

4 (n

o cr

op 1

st y

ear)

FR

san

d (t

wo

crop

s)

5 O

RG

P (

sum

pl)

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

5 O

RG

P (

sum

pl)

FY

M c

lay

(firs

t cro

p)

6 O

RG

(su

m p

l) cl

ay (

two

crop

s)

7 P

EA

T P

tabl

e on

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

7 P

EA

T P

rai

sed

bed

on c

lay

(tw

o cr

ops)

8 P

EA

T ta

ble

on m

in (

two

crop

s)

8 P

EA

T r

aise

d be

d on

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

9 C

OIR

P ta

ble

on m

in (

two

crop

s)

1 F

+P m

in (

thre

e cr

ops)

2 F

min

(th

ree

crop

s)

4 m

in (

thre

e cr

ops)

System and soil type

Ind

ex

Energy (GJ/ha) GWP (eqtCO2)

N leached (kgN/ha) % nutrients recycledN balance (kgN/ha) P balance (kgP/ha)

Water use (m3/ha) Ecotoxicitysoil erosion (t/ha) net margin (£/ha)

local employment (hrs/ha) visual

Sustainability Profile of June-bearer Crops (pre-pick) per ha

Year 1 Year 2

Year 3

Profile of June-bearer per tonne Class 1 Fruits (to retail outlets)

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 F

+P m

in (

first

cro

p)

1 F

+P c

lay

(firs

t cro

p)

1 F

+P (

sum

pl)

min

(fir

st c

rop)

1 F

+P (

sum

pl)

clay

(fir

st c

rop)

2 F

min

(fir

st c

rop)

2 F

(su

m p

l) m

in (

first

cro

p)

3 P

min

(fir

st c

rop)

4 m

in (

first

cro

p)

4 (n

o cr

op 1

st y

ear)

san

d (f

irst c

rop)

5 O

RG

P (

sum

pl)

min

(fir

st c

rop)

5 O

RG

P (

sum

pl)

FY

M c

lay

(firs

t cro

p)

6 O

RG

(su

m p

l) m

in (

first

cro

p)

7 P

EA

T P

tabl

e on

min

(fir

st c

rop)

7 P

EA

T P

rai

sed

bed

on c

lay

(firs

t cro

p)

8 P

EA

T ta

ble

on m

in (

first

cro

p)

8 P

EA

T r

aise

d be

d on

min

(fir

st c

rop)

9 C

OIR

P ta

ble

on c

lay

(firs

t cro

p)

9 C

OIR

P r

aise

d be

d on

cla

y (f

irst c

rop)

1 F

+P m

in (

two

crop

s)

1 F

+P c

lay

(tw

o cr

ops)

1 F

(su

m p

l) m

in (

two

crop

s)

1 F

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

2 F

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

2 F

(sum

pl)

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

3 P

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

4 m

in (

two

crop

s)

4 (n

o cr

op 1

st y

ear)

FR

san

d (t

wo

crop

s)

5 O

RG

P (

sum

pl)

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

5 O

RG

P (

sum

pl)

FY

M c

lay

(firs

t cro

p)

6 O

RG

(su

m p

l) cl

ay (

two

crop

s)

7 P

EA

T P

tabl

e on

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

7 P

EA

T P

rai

sed

bed

on c

lay

(tw

o cr

ops)

8 P

EA

T ta

ble

on m

in (

two

crop

s)

8 P

EA

T r

aise

d be

d on

min

(tw

o cr

ops)

9 C

OIR

P ta

ble

on m

in (

two

crop

s)

1 F

+P m

in (

thre

e cr

ops)

2 F

min

(th

ree

crop

s)

4 m

in (

thre

e cr

ops)

System and soil type

Ind

ex

Energy (GJ/ha) GWP (eqtCO2)

N leached (kgN/ha) % nutrients recycledN balance (kgN/ha) P balance (kgP/ha)

Water use (m3/ha) Ecotoxicitysoil erosion (t/ha) net margin (£/ha)

local employment (hrs/ha) visual

Year 1 Year 2

Year 3

Conclusions

• A wide variety of approaches to encourage a more sustainable agriculture are being used in the UK. • Improvements must be seen at farm level before they can be seen at national level.• Sustainability is site specific.• Sustainability is multi-issue - an integrated approach is necessary.• Farmers need support and encouragement to interpret and use the more sophisticated systems.• Streamlined access to information and advice in a cost effective manner is imperative.

Thank you!Thank you!