multi-criteria methods for the evaluation of agricultural production systems

1 March 2010 Evaluation methods 1

Multi-criteria methods for the evaluation of agricultural production systems

Scientific seminar

Environmental assessment of agricultural production systems:

application to tropical systems

Hayo van der Werf,INRA,

Rennes, France

[email protected]

March 1, 2010


Agronomy……environmental analysis

Netherlands: Agronomy/crop physiology, P. Vereijken INRA Colmar: environmental indicators, Ph. Girardin,

Ch. Bockstaller INRA Rennes: farming systems experimentation INRA Rennes: LCA, where’s the nitrogen ? INRA: LCA, where’s the science?

Now: one foot in agronomy, one foot in environmental analysis


Rapid and intuitive environmental evaluation…

Tools for evaluation are needed


Environmental impacts of agriculture

Classic approach: one site, one pollutant ex. pig farm, nitrates

This may lead to pollution transfer One problem (nitrate) is solved, two problems

emerge (P, N2O) emissions on-farm versus emissions elsewhere

Multi-criteria system approach


Three pig production systems(PhD thesis Claudine Basset-Mens)

1. Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) (conventional)

2. Red Label (RL), (quality label)

3. Organic Agriculture (OA)


Five multi-criteria methods for environmental evaluation

Acronym Name N° obj.

LCA Life Cycle Assessment 6

EF Ecological Footprint 3

EMA (UK) Environmental Management for Agriculture 12

FarmSmart (UK) National Sustainable Agriculture Indicators 6

Dialecte (F) SOLAGRO agro-environnemental diagnosis 19


ACV EE FarmSmartMode d'expression

Sce narios Perfor-

mance Emissions

Indicateurs agro-

écologiq.

Approche ferme entière

BPA 1 2 3LR 1 2 2AB 1 1 1

BPA 3 3 3 3LR 2 2 2 2AB 1 1 1 1

BPA 1 1 1 2LR 2 2 1 3AB 3 3 1 1

Par kg de porc produit

EMA DIALECTE

Exploitation dans son ensemble

Par hectare

Méthodes

Five methods to evaluate three production systems

GAPRLOA

Per kg of pig

GAPRLOA

Per ha

GAPRLOA

WholeFarm

Sys-tems

Expression mode

EFLCAWhole farmapproach

Agro-ecologicalindicators


Methods for environmental evaluation

Aim the integration of knowledge, in order to interpret complex systems to support decision making

Their aim: characterise actions (systems, scenarios) with respect to their impacts, in order to identify the action that has the least impact identify ways to reduce impacts for each action

Such methods can fail in (at least) two ways: they give the wrong answer they are too laborious to use


The stages of methods for multi-criteria evaluation of farming systems

1. Definition of the system to be evaluated2. Definition of the overall objective and the dimensions3. Identification of specific objectives4. Identification of indicators 5. Calculation and interpretation of results6. Recommendations to improve the system


1. Defining the system


2. Defining the overall objective and the dimensions to be considered

12 methods : Evaluation of environmental impact (6) Evaluation of environmental performance (adherence to

Good Farming Practice) (1) Evaluation of sustainability (3: env.+econ., 2:

env.+econ.+soc.)

In order to: Establish payment amounts (1), Conceive new systems (2), Encourage good practice (1)


3. Definition of specific objectives for each dimension

12 methods : 26 “environmental objectives”2 to 13 objectives per method

Few objectives: miss out on a pollution transfer Many objectives: feasibility, interpretation How to choose a set of objectives? Consult stakeholders: emphasis of local and regional

problems What role for the researcher?


3. Definition of specific objectives for each dimension (Environmental dimension: IDEA, LCA)

Inputs Emissions System state Non-renewable energy use Greenhouse gases Landscape quality

Other resource use CFC (stratospheric ozone) Natural biodiversity

Water use Acidifying gases Agricultural biodiversity

Land use Eutrophying substances System biomass

Erosion Pesticides Air quality

Nitrogen fertiliser use Ecotoxic substances Water quality

Pesticide use Human toxicity substances Soil quality

Waste production Food quality

Animal well-being


4. Identification/construction of indicators for each specific objective

“Indicators are variables ...] that supply information on other variables that are harder to access ...] Indicators also facilitate decision making….” (Gras et al., 1989).

“They supply information on a complex system to facilitate its comprehension ...] by its users, so that they can take the right decisions to reach objectives” (Mitchell et al., 1995).


The indicator in the causal chain: practices, emissions, impacts

PracticesCrop rotation, fertilisation, animal density, grazing, type of building

Climate, soil

Farm

Productswheat, milk,

EmissionsCO2, CH4, NH3, NO3, PO4, N2O, pesticides

Impact

Indicator of practices

Fertilisation Kg N/ha

Soil N atharvest

NO3, leached Eutrophisation of costal zone

Indicator of state

Environmental relevance

Feasibility

Impact indicatorEmission indicator

Fate Sensitivity of the target


What units for indicators?

A global score at farm level

Impacts per ha Favours low-input systems

Impact per kg of product, Euro of value added Favours high-input systems

What is the function of production systems? Occupy land while minimising impacts Produce while minimising impacts


Four methods for environmental evaluation at farm level

EP : Ecopoints (Austria) EMA : Environmental Management for Agriculture

(UK) IDEA : Indicators of Farm Sustainability (France) LCA : Life Cycle Assessment (Switserland)


Indicators used: pesticides Indicator Type EP Number of applications / ha / year Practices

MAE Score based on amount of active ingredient, its physical, chemical, toxicological characteristics, the characteristics of the field and of the application technique

Impact

IDEA Number of applications at prescribed dose / ha / year Practices

ACV Scores (soil, water, human toxicity) based on the amount of active ingredient and its toxicological characteristics

Impact


Indicators used: erosion

Indicator Type EP Score based on the degree of soil cover by crops, the

use of under-sowing, of mulch sowing, of a perennial crop

Practices

MAE

IDEA Score based on the implementation of non-tillage, absence of crop cover, mulching, grass cover in perennial crops, burning of crop residues

Practices

ACV A simulation model is used to calculate an amount of eroded soil, taking into account the site, farmer practices and the field’s history.

Impact


5. Interpretation of results: reference values, weighting, aggregation

A reference value facilitates the interpretation of an indicator value: “acceptable” versus “unacceptable” What basis: legislation, expertise, stakeholder consensus,

science?

Weighting of specific objectives What basis: legislation, expertise, stakeholder consensus,

science?

Aggregation of results facilitates interpretation, decision making, at the cost of loss of information


Format of output, reference values, weighting and aggregation

Format of ouput

Reference values

Weighting Aggregation

EP Scores, variable scale

Yes, - : bad, + : good

Indirectly, via scale

By sum of scores

MAE Scores, fixed scale : -100 à 100

Yes, - : bad, + : good

Up to the user No

IDEA Scores, variable scale

No Indirectly, via scale

By sum of scores

ACV Values No No No


6. Recommendations to improve the system

This stage lacks for most methods A matter of agro-environmental expertise, requiring a dialogue with stakeholders


Allows the identification of pollution transfers Considers important impacts, including global impacts Considers both direct (on-farm) and indirect impacts (inputs)

Uses indicators of impacts rather than indicators of farmer practices

Allows several modes of expression ( /ha, /kg, /€) Is easy to interpret (reference values, weighting of

impacts, aggregation of results) Is valid and operational

A “good” method for the evaluation of the impacts of farms:


Conclusions

The outcome of a multi-criteria evaluation depends on the characteristics of the options analysed and of the method used

It is up to the user to choose the appropriate method according to her/his needs

A method can fail in (at least) two ways: It gives the wrong answer It is too laborious to use


Life Cycle Assessment

Conceptual framework: international, inter economic sectors

“You can’t understand a picture when you are inside the frame”

Peter Boyd


Van der Werf, HMG and Petit, J, 2002. Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 93, 131-145

Payraudeau, S and van der Werf, HMG, 2005. Environmental impact assessment of a farming region: a review of methods. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 93, 131-145

Van der Werf HMG, Tzilivakis J, Lewis K, Basset-Mens C, 2007. Environmental impacts of farm scenarios according to five assessmentmethods. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 118: 327-338

References

multi-criteria methods for the evaluation of agricultural production systems

Documents