10 Sustainability Indicators For Agriculture In The European Union

Jolanta B Królczyk and Agnieszka E Latawiec

10.1 Introduction

10.1.1 Need For Monitoring Of Agriculture Worldwide

Commodities produced in agricultural systems are paramount for the existence of humans. Agriculture is also characterized by multifunctionality, on account of its variety of functions. Multifunctionality of farming can be distinguished into three dimensions including the supply of agricultural commodities, features of rural areas (e.g. landscape management practices, biodiversity values) and management and use of resources (e.g. land, water, capital) (Knickel et al., 2004). Taking into account the demand side, functions of agriculture can be categorized into environmental, economic and social dimensions (Hall and Rosillo-Calle, 1999), which directly correspond to the three sustainability pillars.

Agriculture can have beneficial or harmful effects on the environment. It is crucial to identify opportunities to optimise the linkages between agriculture and the biological and physical properties of the natural environment because of the connection with many vital global environmental issues including biodiversity loss, climate change, desertification, water quality and quantity, and pollution (Van Huylenbroeck et al., 2007). Excessive intensification of agriculture has caused negative effects on the environment and biodiversity (by reducing habitat heterogeneity; Benton et al., 2003), destroyed vast areas of natural habitat and caused an untold loss of ecosystem services. It is also responsible for about 30% of greenhouse-gas emissions (IPCC, 2007; MEA, 2005). Intensification can raise problems not just in relation to landscape and biodiversity but can also affect soil, water and air (COM, 1999). For example, about 1.2 billion hectares (almost 11% of the Earth’s vegetated surface) has been degraded by human activity over the past 45 years (Pretty and Koohafkan, 2002). Degradation (particularly through desertification) is a global problem. More than 70% of the world’s dry land is affected by degradation caused by overuse or inappropriate use of land (FAO, 2006). In many parts of the EU, agricultural land is under severe threat from alternative land uses and inadequate land use practices. The damaging effects concern: physical degradation (erosion, desertification, waterlogging and compaction), chemical degradation (changes in acidity, salinisation, contamination by pesticides, heavy metals), and biological degradation (changes to micro-organisms and to the humus content of soil) (COM, 1999).

In addition to degradation, intensification can have negative consequences for water. Water efficiency for irrigation is generally very low and there are major concerns regarding depletion of this resource and persistent conflicts over water rights. Where water usage exceeds the rate of replenishment and the water table falls, environmental consequences can be serious such as salinisation by sea water invading the underground supplies, or loss of biodiversity resulting from changes in flow of watercourses. This happened particularly in Mediterranean countries. Irrigation can also result in water pollution because of an increased concentration of pesticides and nutrients in run-off water. Nitrates and phosphates in water which come from farmers’ activity may cause eutrophication. Consequences of this are further drinking water contamination which exceed the European Union (EU) norms, elevated levels of nitrates in marine and coastal areas (large areas of the North Sea coast line and parts of the Mediterranean) leading to algal growth and other forms of changes to the ecosystems. This leads to economic losses not only for fisheries and for tourists but also for all citizens – everybody must pay higher prices for drinking water, which has to be purified.

Agriculture is a part of the economy as the cultivation of animals, plants, fungi, and other life forms for food, fiber, biofuel, medicinals and other products are used to sustain and enhance human life (ILO, 1999), and thus it remains a major force in growth of the whole economy. Important determinants of the economic function contain the complexity and maturity of market development and the level of institutional development (Van Huylenbroeck, 2007). Furthemore, farmers activity may contribute to carbon sequestration (West and Marland, 2003), flood control and water conservation (Mitsh and Gosselink, 2000). Social function of agriculture is associated, for instance, with fundamental existence of rural communities. The maintenance and dynamism of rural communities is critical to sustaining agro-ecology and improving the quality of life (and assuring the very survival) of rural residents, particularly of the youth, women, the elderly people. Social viability includes maintenance of the cultural heritage (Van Huylenbroeck, 2007) and might revitalise rural areas (Sharpley and Vass, 2006). In their interesting, case-study based research (N = 24) on agricultural abandonment in mountain areas from different locations in Europe, MacDonald et al. (2000) showed that abandonment is widespread and generally has undesirable effects on the environmental parameters. Moreover, the influence of environmental changes cannot be predicted due to environmental, agricultural and socio-economic contextual factors. The study of socio-economic characteristics reveals that mountain areas are potentially vulnerable to abandonment through high dependence on agricultural employment and small size of their operation, which may reduce viability and the capacity for adaptation. Twenty one out of 24 zones were suffering from some form of abandonment (e.g. reduction of traditional farming practices, generally those associated with livestock practices such as transhumance or hay meadow management).

Environmental, economic and social functions of agriculture are interrelated and in many cases depend on the policy implemented in the local and national level. The outcomes and consequences of intentional human activities and changes in the agriculture sector must be measured and monitored over time to reveal the positive or the negative impact on environment, economy and social issues. Some ideas to improve environmental, economic or social aspects of agriculture may bring short-term disadvantages (such as lower productivity), but long-term benefits (Van Huylenbroeck, 2007). Therefore the role of monitoring and evaluation of the agriculture sector is crucial and requires regular and continuous tracking of inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts of development activities against targets. It this way it can be determined whether adequate implementation progress has been made to achieve outcomes, especially towards sustainability goals. Monitoring and evaluating indicators also provide information to improve management and future project implementation (FAO, 2010; see also chapters 3 and 4 for discussion on importance of monitoring).

10.1.2 Different Definitions Of And Approaches To Sustainable Agriculture – What Is Sustainable Agriculture?

In the past, agricultural strategies have been assessed on the basis of a narrow range of criteria, such as profitability or yields. Nowadays agriculture is considered sustainable when current and future food demands can be met without unnecessarily compromising economic, ecological, and social/political needs (AS, 2004). One interpretation of sustainable agriculture focuses on types of technology, especially strategies that reduce reliance on non-renewable or environmentally harmful inputs. These include ecoagriculture, permaculture, organic, ecological, low-input, biodynamic, environmentally-sensitive, community-based, farm-fresh and extensive strategies. There is intense debate, however, about whether agricultural systems using some of these terms actually qualify as ‘sustainable’ (AS, 2004). It is believed that these strategies may lack adequate scientific knowledge, they cannot be ‘scaled up’, they are limited in scope and they are incapable of jointly meeting society’s demands for food production, livelihood generation, and mitigating environmental degradation (CU, 2014). A second and broader interpretation focuses more on the concept of agricultural sustainability that goes beyond a particular farming system. Sustainability in agricultural systems is viewed in terms of resilience (the capacity of systems to buffer shocks and stresses) and persistence (the capacity of systems to carry on). It implies the capacity to adapt and change as external and internal conditions change. The conceptual parameters have broadened from an initial focus on environmental aspects to include first economic and then wider social and political dimensions (Cernea, 1991; DFID, 2002):

• –   ecological – the core concerns are to reduce negative environmental and health externalities (in economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit), to enhance and use local ecosystem resources, and preserve biodiversity. More recent concerns include broader recognition for positive environmental externalities from agriculture. Sustainable agriculture produces not only food and other goods to the market, but it also provides public goods such as: clean water, maintaining biodiversity, carbon sequestration in soils, groundwater recharge and flood protection.
• –   economic – economic perspectives on agricultural sustainability seek to assign value to ecological assets and also to include a longer time frame in economic analysis. They also highlight subsidies that promote the depletion of resources or unfair competition with other production systems.
• –   social and political – sustainable agricultural systems may have many positive side effects including helping to build natural capital, strengthen social capital and develop human capacities (Ostrom, 1990; Pretty, 2003). At the local level, for example, agricultural sustainability may be associated with farmer participation, group action and promotion of local institutions, culture and farming communities.

The concept of agricultural sustainability does not mean ruling out any technologies or practices on ideological ideas. If a technology works to improve productivity and does not cause undue harm to the environment, then it may result in a range of sustainability benefits (Pretty, 2008). In that respect, key principles for sustainability according to Pretty (2008, p. 451) are as follows:

• –   to integrate biological and ecological processes such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil regeneration, allelopathy, competition, predation and parasitism into food production processes,
• –   to minimize the use of those non-renewable inputs that cause harm to the environment or to the health of farmers and consumers,
• –   to make productive use of the knowledge and skills of farmers, thus improving their self-reliance and substituting human capital for costly external inputs,
• –   to make productive use of people’s collective capacities to work together to solve common agricultural and natural resource problems, such as for pest, watershed, irrigation, forest and credit management.

10.2 Introduction To The Case Study – EU Agriculture

10.2.1 Origins Of The Concept Of Sustainable Agriculture In Europe

Agricultural policy in the European Union increasingly emphasizes its sustainability. The industrial direction of agricultural development had caused increase in production, yet had affected in a negative way social, economic and environmental aspects, such as decreased biological diversity or increased water contamination with nitrates coming from agricultural sources. This industrial orientation on farming also resulted in additional external costs (e.g. water pollution or land degradation). Therefore, from the beginning of the 90s of the twentieth century changes in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) were initiated. The weakness of CAP before 1992 was lack of coherent economic, environmental and social goals. Reorientation and extension of goals was highlighted in three reforms: ‘MacSharry reform’ (1992) (see more COM, 1991), Agenda 2000 (1999) (see more COM, 1991; BEU, 1997; COM, 1999), and Luxembourg Agreement (2003) (see more EC, 2014a; EC, 2014b).

The MacSharry reform introduced agri-environment programmes. The dual role of farmers has been underlined - firstly food producers and secondly protectors of the environment in the context of rural development (guardians of the countryside). Farmers should be supported as an environmental manager through use of less-intensive techniques and the implementation of environmental-friendly measures. It is worth noting that COM (1991) referred to environmentally sustainable form of agricultural production and food quality. It also relates to ‘specific measures on the environment, to be tailored to the situation in individual Member States’ (COM, 1991, p. 11).

The overall reason to introduce Agenda 2000 was to prepare Europe’s agriculture for the 21st century and enlargement of the EU. The importance of developing, targeting and monitoring agri-environmental indicators has been highlighted. Agri-environmental indicators show developments over time, provide quantitative information and enable understanding complex issues in the field of agriculture and environment. Although Agenda 2000 underlined the objective of food security and the linkage with the safety of the environment, it was still dominated by the instruments of the first pillar – production support.

In 2007 the Commission evaluated the implementation of the CAP reform implemented in 2003 and adjusted it to a rapidly changing environment (see COM, 1999; EC, 2014c). In 2010 after a public debate, the Commission presented a Communication on ‘The CAP towards 2020’ (COM, 1999). In October 2011 the Commission presented a set of legal proposals designed to make the CAP a more effective policy for a more competitive and sustainable agriculture and vibrant rural areas. Finally, after intensive negotiations between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council, a political agreement on the reform of the CAP has been reached on 26 June 2013. The new CAP 2014-2020 focused on the operational objectives of delivering more effective policy instruments, designed to improve the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and its sustainability over the long term. EU agriculture needs to attain higher levels of production of safe and quality food, while preserving the natural resources that agricultural productivity depends upon. In 2011 the European Commission introduced systems to ensure greater environmental protection and management, known as ´greening measures´ (Brouwer, 2006). Under the new European Commission regulations, 7% of farm area will have to be transformed under the protection of biodiversity (see also section 2.3). The EU in CAP 2014-2020 shall endeavour to limit the negative effects of agriculture (water pollution, soil depletion, water shortages and loss of wildlife habitats) and to encourage its positive contributions (climate stability, biodiversity, landscapes and resilience to flooding). The future CAP shall promote energy efficiency, carbon sequestration, biomass and renewable energy production and, more generally, innovation.

10.2.2 What Were The Historical And Recent Trends Regarding Agriculture And Steps Towards Sustainability?

Over the last centuries, agriculture has shaped many European landscapes. After World War II Europe was in the food shortage, so the farming was orientated into intensification of agriculture. High level of financial support favoured intensive agriculture and an increasing use of fertilizers and pesticides, and intensive methods on crop and livestock farms have often led to a loss of biodiversity and increased environmental degradation in many EU countries (Brouwer, 2006). Land, water and air pollution, the destruction of hedge rows, stonewalls, and ditches and the draining of wetlands have contributed to the loss of valuable habitats for many birds, plants and other species. Intensification in certain areas led to an excessive use of water resources and to increased soil erosion (COM, 1999). During the last 25 years, the EU (since 1990) saw the awareness of the crucial role on the sustainable agriculture steadily growing, which is visible in the following CAP reforms.

Currently, European agriculture is characterised by a broad heterogeneity of production systems with wide-ranging geographical features. A general trend includes decline in farm numbers, increased farm size and relatively stable trends on utilised agricultural area (Brouwer, 2006). Moreover, agricultural production is becoming more specialized. Generally two trends dominate: (i) intensification and specialisation in regions with competitive advantages, inducing concentration of production and more homogeneous farming methods, (ii) extensification of production in remote areas with unfavourable economic, social or environmental conditions, leading sometimes to marginalisation and abandonment of production. Intensification of production is mainly observed in regions where agriculture is most productive. In contrast, marginalisation and abandonment tends to occur in remote areas or on less fertile land where traditional extensive agriculture is threatened by its inability to compete effectively with intensive production in other regions (Brouwer, 2006). According to Baldock et al. (1996), marginalisation occurs in areas where farming ceases to be viable under an existing land use and where other agricultural options are not available leading to land abandonment and driven by a combination of social, economic, political and environmental factors. Regions which are potentially most vulnerable to marginalisation and possibly to abandonment fall into two main categories – regions where extensive systems predominate and those characterized by small-scale agriculture (COM, 1999). Organic farming is another trend observed in EU agriculture. Indeed, in areas with a high proportion of permanent grassland or environmentally sensitive regions organic farming can be an interesting alternative (COM, 1999). In 2012, the area of organic land, the number of organic farmers and the organic market continued to grow in Europe. There were more than 250 000 organic producers in the EU while 320 000 globally (Willer, 2014).

10.2.3 What Is Considered Sustainable Agriculture In Europe?

Sustainable agriculture is often cited as the answer for the question how to produce more food with fewer resources, ensure food security and reduce poverty. It is a challenge not only for Europe, but also for the whole world. Sustainable agriculture is therefore a key for long-term and inclusive growth, especially in developing countries in which agriculture is still the major backbone of the economy (EC, 2012). In this context, sustainable intensification of agriculture to levels that optimize the highest yield with minimum possible adverse impacts on the environment has been proposed as a strategy to reconcile increasing demand for food and protection of natural resources (Godfray et al., 2010; Foresight, 2011). There is a number of studies that demonstrate a yield gap between current and potential sustainable production levels and that achieving these higher production levels would enable to feed future population and conserve natural environment under climate change (Licker et al., 2010; Mueller et al., 2012; Sakschewski et al., 2014, Strassburg et al., 2014; West et al., 2014; Fig. 1). Indeed, because intensification means increasing yield per hectare it may result in land sparing for nature or for other agricultural uses (Balmford et al., 2012). As mentioned in the section above, concurrent to the need for sparing land for biodiversity, the European Commission introduced three ‘greening measures’: establishing Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) on 7% of farmed area, maintaining existing permanent grassland, and growing a minimum of three different crops on any farm with >3 ha of arable land. To this end, 30% of direct payments to farmers were to become conditional on compliance with these measures.

These greening measures were introduced to address concerns expressed in the latest CAP reform in 2010, in which preserving the environment was outlined as one of the three main challenges (the other two are food security and maintaining the territorial balance and diversity of rural areas). Following a 3-year negotiation, these measures were somewhat melted down and are now set at 5%, instead of 7%, and only on farms with >15 ha of arable land. Countries can further reduce the requirement to 2.5% or lower in some regions. Moreover, EFAs now apply only to roughly 50% of EU farmland and most farmers are exempt from deploying them. Nevertheless, if intensification continues, and evidence from parts of Europe characterized by less intensive farming demonstrates that this process will continue (e.g. Królczyk et al., 2014) combined with land sparing for nature, it should be performed in a way that does not compromise producers’ economic returns and increased yields. However, in order to realise the full potential of sustainable productivity increase, complementary policies such as territorial planning should be put in place to both avoid undesirable outcomes of intensification (such as rebound effect – see e.g. Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011) and to maximise the positive outcomes for biodiversity (establishing protected areas in places that provide landscape connectivity). Furthermore, management of agricultural land designed for sustainable intensification should be performed in ways that reduce negative impacts on the environment (Godfray et al., 2010).

Another approach with the aim to achieve sustainable agriculture and reconcile agricultural production and biodiversity is ‘land sharing’ (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2010), at which heart lays coexistence of biodiversity and agriculture on the same land area. Examples of such an agricultural matrix can be found worldwide (Mendenhall et al., 2013) and are common in Europe. Besides biodiversity-related arguments defending land-sharing, proponents of this strategy often bring attention to other ethical and esthetical aspects linked with landscape mosaics. In that respect, intensification is sometimes linked with environmental and social unfairness, while ‘spared land’ for biodiversity may be unavailable to be appreciated by poorer parts of society. There is vast literature defending these opposite trends, while others show that different approaches may work in different circumstances (Godfray, 2011). It is generally agreed that, in order for land sparing to achieve its intended benefits for people and environment, they must be supported by monitoring and relevant legislation (Phalan et al., 2011; Balmford et al., 2012). Concurrently, Pe’er et al. (2014) in response to dilution of new environmental prescriptions of the EU, proposes actions to benefit biodiversity within a EU legislation scheme that includes allocating sufficient funding and effort within the Farm Advisory System in order to deliver ecological expertise to farmers and provide budget through budget modulation, prioritizing context-specific measures shown to support biodiversity and ecosystem services. They also propose to set clear and measurable targets that are coherent with the EU Biodiversity Strategy (for other recommendations see Pe‘er et al., 2014).

Similarly to the dichotomy between land sparing and land sharing, various authors defend different approaches to land management, intensity of agriculture and used inputs. A classic example is organic agricultural production (usually small-scale holder) versus intensive (usually large-scale agriculture, Fig. 2.). Although in general organic agriculture is considered more environmentally friendly, some conventional farmers defend their practices precisely as being sustainable. Furthermore, some authors defend an approach that evaluates sustainability of a system taking into account not inputs and level of intensity but pressures exerted on environment by a farm (see also section ‘Discussion’ below; Gaudino et al., 2014). Although often driven by pragmatic motives, rather than environmental concern, a producer may have consciousness that his/her practices, if inappropriate, may compromise his/her production (thus profits) in the long term. Seemingly driven by economic benefits, it may lead to sustainable management of the farm and awareness of the impacts on the ecosystem services that a farm provides. Some farmers also claimed (personal communication) that even if not labelling themselves as eco-friendly and openly admitting the priority of economic aspects in their farm management, they do not necessarily behave against the sustainability principles. Quite on the contrary, a good farm manager, independently on being organic farmer or a conventional one, may be aware that excessive inputs are not sustainable for economic and social reasons. For instance, excess of fertilizer is avoided on account of inefficiency of money spent on it, if excess infiltration occurs (‘fertilization costs, why use excess?’; personal communication). Similarly, the farmer may be aware of the adverse effect of agrochemicals on his health and his family and therefore opt for rational use of agrochemicals.

Although farm management is perceived through the lens of a business and being able to run life at good level, the environment may benefit as well. Importantly, sustainability is also associated per se with long-term thinking and many ‘intensive’ farmers are aware that if they lead to soil degradation, it will undermine their future production. In relation to ‘greening measures’, lack of environmental (and biodiversity in particular) consciousness must not necessarily prevent actions towards land sparing, if a farmer is aware for example that pollination is good for yields. For practical reasons, for a large-scale farmer leaving a part of his farm (usually area of lower yields) may also not be a problem (personal communication). We therefore conclude that both organic farming, driven directly by farmer’s environmental and social concerns, or rational conventional farming, if applied appropriately, may contribute to sustainability of agricultural systems.

10.3 Which Indicators Are Used Within The EU To Assess Sustainable Agriculture?

A vital step towards making agriculture sustainable is evaluating the effects of different farming systems around the world (Sachs et al., 2010). There have been many attempts to agree at the global scale on a list of sustainable development indicators including agriculture aspects. The results are however not conclusive. There are many different indicators among various organizations such as United Nations, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - OECD, European Union - EU, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - FAO. OECD developed an overall framework and approach to establish a set of agri-environmental indicators. A pilot survey on 37 (currently 13) agri-environmental indicators in OECD Member countries was conducted in 1995 (FAOSTAT, 2011). The coverage of agri-environmental indicators from the year 2013 in the OECD compendium of agri-environmental indicators is presented in Table 1.

Within the EU, the IRENA (Indicator Reporting on the integration of Environmental concerns into Agricultural policy) project was a joint exercise between several Commission Directorates-General (Agriculture and Rural Development, Environment, Eurostat and Joint Research Centre) and the European Environment Agency, which has led to substantial progress in the development of 35 agri-environmental indicators. Further to the IRENA operation, the European Commission identified 28 agri-environmental indicators (AEI) (UNECE, 2012). Indicators have different ranges based on different approaches to sustainability definition. Only some of the indicators can be compared at the global level. The reason for this is sometimes lack of statistical data and also that many of the interactions between environment and agriculture are not well understood or are difficult to assess and capture in a single framework. Moreover, socio-economic factors are independent of the policy and they can determine changes in farming systems and rural areas and can also affect the environment. A further problem with the current system is that the data collected are rarely comparable across ecological zones because of inconsistencies in methodologies or in the spatial scale at which observations are made (MEA, 2005; IPCC, 2007; McIntyre et al., 2009).

Agri-environmental indicators are a useful tool for monitoring and analysing the relationship between agriculture and the environment and identifying trends in interaction. In January 2000 the European Commission published the communication ‘Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy” (COM, 2000). The need for appropriately developed agri-environmental indicators is highlighted. Indicators improve transparency, accountability and ensure the success of monitoring, control and evaluation. Agri-environmental indicators have to assess positive and negative effects of agriculture and should be sufficiently differentiated to be able to capture regional differences in environmental conditions (COM, 2000). Further, they should provide information: on the state of the environment in agriculture; on the wider context, particularly concerning the diversity of the EU’s agri-ecosystems; for understanding and monitoring the linkages between agricultural practices and their effects on environment; to support the global assessment process of agricultural sustainability; to assess the extent to which agricultural and rural development policies promote environmental friendly farming activities and sustainable agriculture (COM, 2006).

The basis for an agri-environmental indicator framework is provided by the OECD’s DSR (Driving force-State-Response) framework and the European Environment Agency’s DPSIR (Driving force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) framework. ‘At the centre of the framework is the current state of the agricultural environment and how this has changed over time. State indicators bring to the fore any undesirable changes which need to be combated (for example, nitrate or pesticide concentrations in water) as well as particularly desirable states which should be preserved (for example, many agricultural landscapes or valuable habitats)’ (COM, 2000, p. 9). The second step is to identify negative and positive impacts on the environment by assessing the pressures that have brought about undesirable change and environmental benefits resulting from farming that have helped to preserve or enhance the environment. The next step is to connect these pressures and processes to the driving forces in the economy (farmers’ activities) as this where the integration process is applied. In the final step society’s response to these issues is monitored (COM, 2000).

In the policy paper Communication COM (2006) 508 final, the European Commission adopted 28 agri-environmental indicators (AEIs) to assess the interaction between the CAP and the environment (COM, 2006). Indicators are identified under the DPSIR (Driving forces - Pressures and benefits - State/Impact - Responses) analytical framework (Table 2). The agricultural DPSIR framework is meant to capture the key ‘factors’ involved in the relationships between agriculture and the environment and to reflect the complex chain of causes and effects linking these factors (COM, 2006). Actions that are important for the EU economy, policy, environmental and sociological issues, like the IRENA project, are performed by many institutions. Eurostat is developing the 28 AEI in cooperation with the EU Member States, the Directorates-General for Agriculture and rural development, and for the Environment, the Joint Research Centre, the European Environmental Agency, as well as with the OECD and the FAO (UNECE, 2012).

Table 1: Coverage of agri-environmental indicators in the OECD compendium of agri-environmental indicators (adapted from OECD, 2013).

Theme	Indicator title	Indicator definition
I. Soil	Soil erosion	1. Agricultural land affected by water and wind erosion
II. Water	Water resources	2. Freshwater withdrawals for agriculture
		3. Irrigated area
		4. Irrigation water application rate
	Water quality	5. Pesticide, nitrate and phosphorus pollution
III. Air and climate change	Ammonia	6. Ammonia emissions from agriculture
	Greenhouse gases	7. Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions (methane and nitrous oxide, but excluding carbon dioxide)
	Methyl bromide	8. Methyl bromide use, expressed in tonnes of ozone depleting substance equivalents
IV. Biodiversity	Farmland birds	9. Populations of breeding bird species that are dependent on agricultural land for nesting or breeding
	Agricultural land cover	10. Agricultural land cover types (arable crops, permanent crops and pasture areas)
V. Agricultural inputs and outputs	Production	11. Agricultural production volume
	Nutrients	12. Agricultural nitrogen and phosphorus balances, surplus or deficit
	Pesticides	13. Pesticide sales
	Energy	14. Direct on-farm energy consumption
		15. Biofuel production to produce bioethanol and biodiesel
	Land	16. Agricultural land-use area
		17. Area of certified organic farming
		18. Area of transgenic crops

10.4 Discussion

There is extensive literature on developing sustainable agriculture. Multiple and sometimes contradictory perspectives are proposed within this academic debate, which is mirrored in the various indicators and frameworks proposed to monitor steps towards sustainable agriculture (Pannell and Glenn, 2000; Piorr, 2003; Haberl et al., 2004; Lomba et al., 2014; West et al., 2014). For example, Overmars et al. (2014) developed a spatially explicit methodology for a species-based indicator for biodiversity on agricultural land in the EU. The indicator combines potential occurrence of 132 species of plants and vertebrates with information on the influence of environmental pressures on these species. Based on this indicator, the authors show that biodiversity in agricultural areas in the south and east of the EU is in a better state than in the west and north, but they also observed high spatial variability. Binder et al. (2010) review a range of indicator-based assessment methods for sustainable agriculture and show that there are different trade-offs encountered when selecting an assessment method. For example, a clear, standardized, top-down procedure allows for potentially benchmarking and comparing results across regions and sites but compromises system specificity. They also showed that bottom-up, regional participatory approaches contribute best to filling the current needs of agricultural sustainability assessment, and address the applicability of the results, by involving the stakeholders in the assessment procedure and providing them with a space for the decision making system (Binder et al., 2010).

The process of selecting the sustainability indicators in agriculture should be adjusted to specific conditions. For instance, in the end of 2012, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe proposed three additional indicators – irrigation, cropping and livestock patterns, gross nitrogen balance, which could be added to the Guidelines for the Application of Environmental Indicators in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (36 indicators) (UN, 2007; UNECE, 2009; UNECE, 2012). Many of the EU AEI have been developed according to the specificity of the European Union agricultural policy and at present could hardly be produced by these countries. The analysis of the agri-environmental indicators used by OECD and EEA has shown that some of these indicators have already been included in the Guidelines for the Application of Environmental Indicators in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central prepared by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Some indicators could also be produced using basic statistical data collected for indicators already included in the Guidelines. In countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus, Central Asia and South-Eastern Asia it was recommended to use the following thirteen indicators based on the Guidelines (UN, 2007; UNECE, 2009):

• 1.    Fertilizer consumption.
• 2.    Pesticide consumption.
• 3.    Irrigation: new indicator.
• 4.    Energy use in agriculture: sub-indicator of indicator ‘final energy consumption’.
• 5.    Agricultural land-use change: can be developed on the basis of data collected for indicator ‘land uptake’.
• 6.    Cropping and livestock patterns: new indicator.
• 7.    Gross nitrogen balance: new indicator.
• 8.    Atmospheric emissions of ammonia from agriculture: can be developed on the basis of data collected for indicator ‘emission of pollutants into the atmospheric air’.
• 9.    Emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture: sub-indicator of indicator ‘greenhouse gas emissions’.
• 10.  Water abstraction: can be developed on the basis of data collected for indicator ‘freshwater abstraction’.
• 11.  Soil erosion: indicator ‘area affected by soil erosion’.
• 12.  Nitrates in water: can be developed on the basis of data collected for indicators ‘nutrients in freshwater’ and ‘nutrients in coastal seawaters’.
• 13.  Share of agriculture in greenhouse gas emissions: can be developed on the basis of data collected for the indicator ‘greenhouse gas emissions’.

There is a strong demand for selecting sustainability indicators for many reasons such as: agri-environmental reports, international comparability of environmental concerns, national and global development plans and development strategies, national feedback on international regulations, conventions and environmental initiatives and evaluation of progress in the achievement of environmental goals. The process of selecting sustainability indicators for agriculture is a difficult process. Indicators should have many attributes (Table 3).

Farm management practices are defined as the decisions and operations that shape the practical management of farms, such as cropping methods, soil cover and tillage. Soil cover and tillage can be considered important agri-environmental indicators. But only limited data is available at farm level about cultivation methods except for few countries or regions. According to Piorr (2010) in places where the links between the environmental effects of farming and management practices are tracked, the monitoring of farm management can be considered an early indication of likely changes in environmental impacts from farming before they can be measured by other indicators, such as soil and water quality. Information on farm management practices is also pertinent to other indicators, such as nutrient balances, soil erosion, soil fertility, water contamination, among others.

Table 3: Agri-environmental indicators attributes (adapted from Piorr, 2010).

Scope of indicators	- inform about status and development of complex systems
	- provide sufficient information about sustainability of land-use systems
	- be responsive to changes related to human activities
	- show trends over time
Policy relevance	- provide a representative picture of environmental, agricultural and rural conditions
	- simple and easy to interpret for different users
	- provide a basis for national and international comparisons
	- assist decision-makers of the private sector as well as trade and industry
Analytically sound	- theoretically well founded in technical and scientific terms
	- based on international standards and international consensus about its validity
	- linked to economic models, forecasting and information systems
Measurability and data required	- have to be controllable
	- readily available or made available at a reasonable cost/benefit ratio
	- adequately documented and of known quality
	- updated at regular intervals
	- have a threshold or reference value against which to compare it.

Other authors, however, demonstrate indicators that decouple the level of agricultural inputs from pressure on the environment and show that higher inputs do not necessarily result in higher pressures on the environment (Gaudino et al., 2014; see also chapter 9). Therefore, the pressure on the environment should be measured on the basis of impacts rather than by mere analysis of the level of intensification of agriculture and regulations should preferably be based on pressure indicator thresholds instead of on system inputs (Gaudino et al., 2014).

Another useful indicator can be soil cover on arable land by green crops, which measures the number of days in a year that the soil is covered with vegetation. Some authors even point out that permanent soil coverage throughout the year should be the aim (OECD, 2001).

Due to many problems with data availability and quality such as: representativeness, geographic coverage, timeliness, accuracy and precision or reliability, Eurostat (the statistical service of European Commission) has launched the project DireDate to get recommendations for setting-up a sustainable data collection system, based on best practices, for developing the agri-environmental indicators of the EU (Piorr, 2010).

During the ‘OECD workshop - agri-environmental indicators lessons learned and future directions’ a few recommendations concerning AEI has been made. One of them was to respond to policy makers’ demands with fewer but easier to understand indicators (OECD, 2010). Sill public and policy makers’ awareness of AEIs in many countries is at a low level and this is limiting their use. Some AEI, in particular related with biodiversity, farm management and cultural landscape, do not have consistent definitions. They can vary depending on the region and scaling up indicators from the farm to the country is a complex problem. Moreover social indicators have been found to provide a weak link in assessing the sustainability of agriculture (OECD, 2010). It has been articulate that there is a strong need to move beyond national level in reporting AEIs to present a spatial distribution on environmental effects, especially identifying areas at most environmental and/or human health risk (OECD, 2010). On the other hand indicators should be location specific, constructed within the context of the contemporary socioeconomic situation (Dumanski and Pieri, 1996). Indicators used in one country are not necessarily applicable to other countries due to variation in biophysical and socioeconomic conditions (Rasul and Thapa, 2003). Undoubtedly to provide a useful policy tool, a set of indicators must be taken into account to understand the relation between farm input use, farm management practices and impacts on ecosystems related to agriculture (OECD, 2010).

10.5 Conclusions

Based on the literature discussed here we can conclude that agriculture is a complex system and pursuing sustainable agriculture requires addressing various features of such a system: resilience, dynamics and adaptation; the features discussed in detail in chapter 2 of this book. The main messages of this chapter are that:

• 1.   Pursue of sustainable agriculture is up in agendas worldwide and is also a priority in EU;
• 2.   Many indicators are proposed and many different approaches to what sustainable agriculture is are in place;
• 3.   The way towards sustainable agriculture is complex and should be adjusted to local circumstances. Fortunately, there are cases of success in literature on well-functioning agriculture we can learn from.

References

Agricultural Sustainability (2004). Agriculture and Natural Resources Team of the UK Department for International Development (DFID) in collaboration with Jules Pretty of the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, UK. August 2004. Retrieved July 22nd, 2014) http://dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org/summaries/wp12.pdf

Baldock, D., Beaufoy, G., Brouwer, F., & Godeschalk, F. (1996). Farming at the Margins: Abandonment or Redeployment of Agricultural Land in Europe, 1996. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI-DLO), London/The Hague.

Balmford, A., Green, R., & Phalan, B. (2012). What conservationists need to know about farming. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, rspb20120515.

Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A., & Wilson, J. D. (2003). Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(4), 182-188.

BEU, Bulletin of the European Union (1997). Supplement 5/97. AGENDA 2000. For a stronger and wider Union. Document drawn up on the basis of COM/97/2000 final. (15/07/1997). Retrieved May 1, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-history/agenda-2000/index_en.htm

Binder, C. R., Feola, G., & Steinberger, J. K. (2010). Considering the normative, systemic and procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. Environmental impact assessment review, 30(2), 71-81.

Brouwer F. (2006). Agriculture for sustainable development: A dialogue on societal demand, pressures and options for policy. Background Note 1 Main trends in agriculture. Sixth Framework Programme Priority 8.1. Specific Support To Policies Specific Support Action SASSPO-SSP4-022698. Retrived April 28, 2014, from http://www.mtt.fi/sasspo/SASSPO_HKI_BN1-1.pdf

COM (1991), Commission of the European Communities. Communication of the Commission to the Council: The development and future of the CAP - Reflections paper of the Commission (01/02/1991). Retrieved May 1, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-history/1992-reform/com91-100_en.pdf

COM (1999), Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission to the Council; The European Parliament; the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Directions towards sustainable agriculture (27.01.1999). Retrieved May 2, 2014, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:51999DC0022

COM (2000), Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy (26.01.2000). Retrieved October 29, 2014, from http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52000DC0020&from=EN

COM (2006), Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Development of agri-environmental indicators for monitoring the integration of environmental concerns into the common agricultural policy (15.9.2006). Retrieved May 2, 2014, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0508&from=EN

Cernea, M. M. (1991). Putting people first: sociological variables in rural development (No. Ed. 2). Oxford University Press for the World Bank.

Cornel University (2014). Review and assessment of ecoagriculture and its scientific foundations. Retrieved July 22, 2014, from http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual16369

DFID (2002). Sustainable Agriculture. Resource Management Keysheet 10. DFID: London, UK. http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/3143.pdf

Dumanski J., & Pieri, C. (1996) Application of the pressure-state-response framework for the land quality indicators (LQI) program. In: Land quality indicators and their use in sustainable agriculture and rural development, p 41. Proceedings of the workshop organized by the Land and Water Development Division FAO Agriculture Department, Agricultural Institute of Canada, Ottawa, 25–26 Jan 1996

European Commission (2012). Sustainable agriculture for the future we want. Retrived March 20, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/events/2012/rio-side-event/brochure_en.pdf

European Commission (2014a). (Last update: 10/02/2014). Citing Websites. Cross-compliance. The 2003 reform - Agriculture and rural development. Retrived May 1, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/cross-compliance/index_en.htm

European Commission (2014b). (Last update: 11/02/2014). Citing Websites. The 2003 reform. Cross-compliance - Agriculture and rural development. Retrived May 1, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-history/2003-reform/index_en.htm

European Commission (2014c). (Last update: 11/02/2014). Citing Websites. The 2008 CAP “Health Check”. The 2008 CAP “Health Check” - Agriculture and rural development. Retrived May 1, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-history/health-check/index_en.htm

European Commission EUROSTAT (2010). (Last update 13.07.2010). Citing Websites. In Analytical framework. Retrived May 4, 2014, from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agri_environmental_indicators/introduction/analytical_framework

Eurostat (2011).Direct and indirect data needs linked to farms for Agri-Environmental Indicators (AEI) ‘DireDate’ Setting-up a sustainable data collection system. Retrived May 3, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/tad/sustainable-agriculture/44793055.pdf

FAO (2006). The role of agriculture and rural development in revitalizing abandoned/depopulated areas. Collective Paper edited by D. Barjolle and H. Bravo for the 34th session of the European Commission on agriculture (Riga 7 June 2006)

FAO (2010). The use of monitoring and evaluation in agriculture and rural development projects. Findings from a review of implementation completion reports. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/tci/docs/BPID1-Use%20of%20m&e%20in%20ag%20and%20rural%20development%20projects.pdf

FAOSTAT, (2011). Session 4: Agri-Environmental statistics and indicators within FAOSTAT Workshop on Environment Statistics. Yaounde, Cameroon, 5-9 December 2011. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/envpdf/UNSD_Yaounde_Workshop/Session%2004-1%20Agri-Environmental%20Statistics%20and%20Indicators%20%28FAO%29.pdf

Foresight (2011). The Future of Food and Farming Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science, London. Foresight. Retrived March 20, 2013, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288329/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf

Gaudino, S., Goia, I., Borreani, G., et al. (2014). Cropping system intensification grading using an agro-environmental indicator set in northern Italy. Ecological Indicators, 40, 76-89.

Godfray, H. C. J. (2011). Food and biodiversity. Science, 333 (6047), 1231-1232.

Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., et al. (2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. science, 327(5967), 812-818.

Haberl, H., Wackernagel, M., & Wrbka, T. (2004). Land use and sustainability indicators. An introduction. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 193-198.

Hall, D., & Rosillo-Calle, F. (1999), The Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land: the energy function (Background Paper 2: Bioenergy), in Background Papers: FAO/Netherlands Conference on the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land, (Ed.) Trenchard, R., Rome (FAO). URL (cited on 26 April 2014): http://www.fao.org/docrep/x2775e/X2775E03.htm Maastricht, 12–17 September 1999

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Cambridge univ. Press

International Labour Organization (1999). ILO Action on safety and health in agriculture. In: Safety and health in agriculture (pp.77). International Labour Organization, Geneva, pp. 77

Knickel, K., Renting, H.J.D., & van der Ploeg (2004). Multifunctionality in European agriculture. In: F. Brouwer (ed.) Sustaining agriculture and the rural environment; governance, policy and multifunctionality (pp. 81-103). Wallingford: Edward Elgar,

Królczyk, J. B., Latawiec, A. E., & Kuboń, M. (2014). Sustainable Agriculture-the Potential to Increase Wheat and Rapeseed Yields in Poland. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 23(3), 663-672.

Lambin, E. F., & Meyfroidt, P. (2011). Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(9), 3465-3472.

Licker, R., Johnston, M., Foley, J. A., et al. (2010). Mind the gap: how do climate and agricultural management explain the ‘yield gap’of croplands around the world?. Global ecology and biogeography, 19(6), 769-782.

Lomba, A., Guerra, C., Alonso, J., et al. (2014). Mapping and monitoring High Nature Value farmlands: Challenges in European landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 143, 140-150.

MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J. R., Wiesinger, G., et al. (2000). Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management, 59(1), 47-69.

McIntyre B. D., Herren H. R., Wakhungu J., Watson R. T. (2009). Agriculture at a Crossroads. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for development. Global Report. Island Press. Retrieved September 24, 2014. From http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/Investment/Agriculture_at_a_Crossroads_Global_Report_IAASTD.pdf

Mendenhall, C. D., Archer, H. M., Brenes, F. O., Sekercioglu, C. H., & Sehgal, R. N. (2013). Balancing biodiversity with agriculture: land sharing mitigates avian malaria prevalence. Conservation Letters, 6(2), 125-131.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press. Retrieved September 23, 2014, from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf

Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (2000). The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological economics, 35(1), 25-33.

Mueller, N. D., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., et al. (2012). Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature, 490(7419), 254-257.

OECD (2001). Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Volume 3. Methods and results. Publications Service, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2010). OECD Workshop Agri-Environmental Indicators Lessons Learned and Future Directions. 23-26 March 2010 Leysin Switzerland. Retrived May 3, 2014, from http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/sustainable-agriculture/45449155.pdf

OECD (2013). Citing Websites. OECD Compendium of Agri-environmental Indicators. OECD Publishing. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264181151-en

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press.

Overmars, K. P., Schulp, C. J., Alkemade, R., et al. (2014). Developing a methodology for a species-based and spatially explicit indicator for biodiversity on agricultural land in the EU. Ecological Indicators, 37, 186-198.

Pannell, D. J., & Glenn, N. A. (2000). A framework for the economic evaluation and selection of sustainability indicators in agriculture. Ecological economics, 33(1), 135-149.

Pe’er, G., Dicks, L. V., Visconti, P., et al. (2014). EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science, 344(6188), 1090-1092.

Perfecto, I., & Vandermeer, J. (2010). The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(13), 5786-5791.

Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A., & Green, R. E. (2011). Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science, 333(6047), 1289-1291.

Piorr, H. P. (2003). Environmental policy, agri-environmental indicators and landscape indicators. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98(1), 17-33.

Piorr H. P. (2010) Experiences with the Evaluation of Agricultural Practices for Eu Agri-Environmental Indicators. OECD Workshop on Agri-environmental Indicators, 23-26 March 2010, Leysin (Switzerland).

Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science, 302(5652), 1912-1914.

Pretty, J. (2008). Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491), 447-465.

Pretty, J., & Koohafkan, P. (2002). Land and agriculture: from UNCED, Rio de Janeiro 1992 to WSSD, Johannesburg 2002. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Rasul, G., & Thapa, G. B. (2003). Sustainability analysis of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh. World Development, 31(10), 1721-1741.

Sachs, J., Remans, R., Smukler, S., et al. (2010). Monitoring the world’s agriculture. Nature, 466(7306), 558-560.

Sakschewski, B., von Bloh, W., Huber, V., et al. (2014). Feeding 10 billion people under climate change: How large is the production gap of current agricultural systems?. Ecological Modelling, 288, 103-111.

Sharpley, R., & Vass, A. (2006). Tourism, farming and diversification: An attitudinal study. Tourism Management, 27(5), 1040-1052.

Strassburg, B. B., Latawiec, A. E., Barioni, L. G., et al. (2014). When enough should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global Environmental Change, 28, 84-97.

United Nations (2007). Environmental Indicators and Indicators-based Assessment Reports: Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. Sixth Ministerial Conference ‘Environment For Europe’, Belgrade, Serbia, 10-12 October 2007. Retrived May 4, 2014, from http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.33/2009/zip.7.e.pdf

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations Statistics Division (2009). Joint Meeting on Environmental Indicators. 31 August – 2 September 2009, Geneva. Retrived May 4, 2014, from http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.33/2009/zip.3.e.pdf

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2012). Committee on Environmental Policy Conference of European Statisticians. Joint Intersectoral Task Force on Environmental Indicators. Review of selected indicators not covered by the guidelines Agri-Environmental Indicators. Sixth session Geneva, 30 October – 1 November 2012. Item 5 of the provisional agenda, note by the secretariat1. Retrived May 4, 2014, from http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.33/2012/mtg4/Agri-environmental_indicators_EN.pdf

Van Huylenbroeck, G., Vandermeulen, V., Mettepenningen, E., & Verspecht, A. (2007). Multifunctionality of agriculture: a review of definitions, evidence and instruments. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 1(3), 1-43.

West, P. C., Gerber, J. S., Engstrom, P. M., et al. (2014). Leverage points for improving global food security and the environment. Science, 345(6194), 325-328.

West, T. O., & Marland, G. (2003). Net carbon flux from agriculture: Carbon emissions, carbon sequestration, crop yield, and land-use change. Biogeochemistry, 63(1), 73-83.

Willer, H. (2014). Organic Farming in Europe. The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends.