The trade-off between scope and precision in sustainability assessments of food systems

With sustainability becoming an increasingly important issue, several tools have been developed, promising to assess sustainability of farms and farming systems. However, looking closer at the scope, the level of assessment and the precision of indicators used for impact assessment we discern considerable differences between the sustainability impact assessment tools at hand. The aim of this paper is therefore to classify and analyse six different sustainability impact assessment tools with respect to the assessment level, the scope and the precision. From our analysis we can conclude that there is a trade-off between scope and precision of these tools. Thus one-size-fits-all solutions with respect to tool selection are rarely feasible. Furthermore, as the indicator selection determines the assessment results, different and inconsistent indicators could lead to contradicting and not comparable assessment results. To overcome this shortcoming, sustainability impact assessments should disclose the methodological approach as well as the indictor sets use and aim for harmonisation of assumptions

Input of particulate heavy metals from rivers and associated sedimentary deposits on the Gulf of Lion continental shelf

Fluxes of the heavy metals chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd) and zinc (Zn) delivered by rivers to the Gulf of Lion (NW Mediterranean Sea) were estimated over a three year study of the River Rhone and its smaller tributaries. Most of the particulate metal fluxes (80e90%) delivered by these rivers occurred within a very short period of time (less than 12%), a typical trend for the Mediterranean environment, where highly contrasting hydrological regimes were observed over the year. Temporal and spatial variations in the fluxes of these particulate metals were driven by the fluxes in both water discharge and suspended particulate matter load. On the shelf, these particulate metal fluxes, largely arising from the Rhone watershed, were two to ten times more important than those resulting from atmospheric deposition. Co, Cr and Ni in the rivers and on the shelf surface sediments were mainly natural and associated with the finest particles. Cd and Phosphorus appeared to be associated with the silt fraction and to be enriched in the prodelta areas. Pb, Zn and Cu were more closely associated with the organic matter content and also showed enrichment in the organic rich prodeltaic sediments. Anthropogenic influences diminished offshore, except for Pb and Zn which could be supplied from the atmosphere by man-made aerosols. Although most of the metals tended to be enriched in the prodelta areas, these did not constitute a permanent sink due to resuspension processes affecting these shallow depths. A resuspension experiment conducted on sediment cores from the Rhone prodelta demonstrated that metal deposited on the surface layer, especially those associated with the organic matter, may be resuspended; this should be taken into account for a complete understanding of the biogeochemical cycle of these metals

Towards a new public goods payment model for remunerating farmers under the CAP Post-2020

Background The direct payment system and the Rural Development Programmes, as the pivotal elements of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), have reduced some undesirable environmental and economic side effects of pre-1992 agricultural policy. However, even after 25 years of implementation and several major reforms, fundamental challenges remain (see Annex 1): - Missing link between CAP objectives, spending and instruments (Buckwell, 2015; Stolze et al., 2016; Pe’er et al., 2017); - Ineffective Pillar 1 Greening component (Forstner et al., 2012; Hart, 2015; Lakner and Holst, 2015; Pe’er et al., 2017); - Indifferent effectiveness of Pillar 2 agri-environment and climate measures (Baldock and Mottershead, 2017); - Low acceptance of the CAP by both farmers and citizens (Pacini et al., 2015; ECORYS & European Commission, 2017; Pe’er et al., 2017). The total amount of funds dedicated to the agricultural sector is limited and a further increase of the financial support in the mid- and long-term perspective seems to be unlikely. This means farmers are expected to deliver more tangible results in a costefficient way with respect to the environmental, social and economic dimension of sustainability with taxpayer’s money allocated in the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), in compliance with international frameworks, in particular the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement. In this report we present a concept for a more effective and cost-efficient CAP by integrating sustainability assessment in the design, targeting and monitoring of policies and in payment allocation. Basing the future CAP on clear sustainability goals and farmer payments on performance towards these goals should lead to a CAP, which is more broadly accepted by both farmers and citizens

Neue Wege in der Schweizer Agrarpolitik. Potential von Nachhaltigkeitsbewertungs- Instrumenten zur Verbesserung der Effektivität, Effizienz und Akzeptanz der Schweizer Agrarpolitik

Das Projekt „Neue Wege zur nachhaltigen Landwirtschaft“ wird vom Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft (BLW) mitfinanziert und gemeinsam vom Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau (FIBL), Agroscope und der Hochschule für Agrar-, Forst- und Lebensmittelwissenschaften (HAFL) durchgeführt. Das grundlegende Ziel des Projekts besteht darin zu untersuchen inwieweit betrieblichen Nachhaltigkeitsanalysen genutzt werden können, um die Schweizer Agrarpolitik effektiver, effizienter und bei der Bevölkerung und den Landwirten akzeptierter zu gestalten. Durch das bisherige Direktzahlungssystem haben sich zwar einige unerwünschte Nebeneffekte der landwirtschaftlichen Tätigkeit verringert. Jedoch zeigt sich, dass die Anstrengungen für den Erhalt unserer Lebensgrundlagen noch verstärkt werden müssen. Mit den Reformen der Agrarpolitik und der stärkeren Fokussierung auf die Umweltleistungen und die Umweltschonung ist der administrative Aufwand aus Sicht der Landwirte stetig gestiegen und wird gemeinhin als zu hoch betrachtet. Von daher gilt es Wege zu finden, die das bestehende System vereinfachen, ohne die Ziele grundlegend zu verändern. Gerade kosteneffizient einsetzbare Instrumente, die belastbare, reproduzierbare und kontrollierbare Ergebnisse liefern, könnten bei der Umsetzung im Kontext des Direktzahlungssystems für erhebliche Synergien sorgen und eine Zielerreichung erleichtern. Sie messen einerseits die Leistungen von landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben umfassend und vergleichbar und verifizieren gleichzeitig die Plausibilität der Angaben auf kosteneffektive Art und Weise. Dabei können Aspekte der betrieblichen Beratung sinnvoll und umfassend mit einem Direktzahlungssystem integriert werden. Auf Grundlage einer ausführlichen Betrachtung bestehender Nachhaltigkeits-bewertungsverfahren, der Auswertung relevanter Tools und Indikatorensets und Feedback aus Gesprächen mit dem BLW und ausgewählten Experten wurde ein zielgerichtetes Konzept ausgearbeitet. Dieses besteht aus zwei eng miteinander verbundenen Komponenten, die beide auf einer fundierten Nachhaltigkeitsanalyse aufbauen: (1) Eine umfassende Nachhaltigkeitsplanung, welche einen nachhaltigen Betriebsentwicklungsprozess fördert; Und (2) ein klar definiertes Punktesystem, welches wirtschaftliche Anreize zur Nachhaltigkeit in der Form von Direktzahlungen setzt. Eine vom Projektteam vorgenommene Evaluierung der Ausgestaltung der zwei Komponenten hat daraufhin ergeben, dass vier konkrete Handlungsoptionen in einem nächsten Schritt erprobt werden sollten. Diese beinhalten finanzielle Anreize zur Erstellung eines betrieblichen Nachhaltigkeitsplans und Indikatorensets, die einen unterschiedlichen Umfang besitzen. Der Nachhaltigkeitsplan kann dabei die Nachhaltigkeitsziele definieren und als Basis für die Punktevergabe dienen

Nachhaltigkeit von drei graslandbasierten Milchproduktionssystemen in der Schweiz mit der Bewertungsmethode RISE

Dairy farming is a key sector for Swiss agriculture and the food industry. Therefore, sustainability of dairy farms is important. Grassland-based farming systems are the most common production system, combining the indoor feeding of fresh grass with partial grazing. The effects of three dairy production systems (VW: full grazing plus on avg. 46±93 SD kg concentrate (KF), GFKF: indoor feeding/partial grazing plus on avg. 345±204 SD kg KF and GFKFplus: indoor feeding/partial grazing plus on avg. 1007±353 SD kg KF) on sustainability, according to RISE, were studied on 12 pilot farms in the lowland of Switzerland. In most of the sustainability themes, the farms performed medium to good according to the RISE evaluation scale. The GFKFplus farms produced the highest output of milk by low N- and P-self-sufficiency, showed the highest energy input and the lowest greenhouse gas output per kg milk. The GFKF group achieved remarkable results by moderate N-, P- and energy inputs. The VW farms showed a lower milk output but a higher level of feed self-sufficiency and a lower energy consumption. In the search for the optimal production strategy, farms should consider the individual farm structure (contiguous areas), the market potential but also social aspects such as the preferences of the farmer`s family

Towards an operational framework for farm sustainability assessment and payment allocation under the CAP

European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) moved from production to income support and protecting the environment (e.g. AEMs). Global challenges (ecological, social, economic) requires a fundamental overhaul of the CAP to a holistic, consistent, efficient and fair mechanism rooted in sustainability

Messung der Nachhaltigkeit auf Betriebsebene: welches Instrument für welchen Zweck?

Für die Bewertung der Nachhaltigkeit auf der Ebene des Landwirtschaftsbetriebes liegen drei in der Schweiz entwickelte Methoden vor: RISE, SMART und SALCAsustain. Im vorliegenden Artikel werden die drei Methoden anhand eines Kriterienkatalogs und einiger konkreter Beispiele miteinander verglichen, mit dem Ziel, dem Leser, der Leserin die Entscheidung zu erleichtern, welches Tool für die eigene spezifische Anwendung und Zielgruppe am besten geeignet ist. Alle drei Methoden decken die Nachhaltigkeit umfassend ab, und aus den Ergebnissen lassen sich für die entsprechenden Interessengruppen konkrete Verbesserungsmassnahmen und Entscheidungen ableiten. Die Ausführungen zeigen, dass sich SALCAsustain für die Beantwortung von Forschungsfragen sowie die Analyse unterschiedlicher betrieblicher Managementstrategien eignet. Die Stärke von RISE ist seine flexible Anwendbarkeit, die es ermöglicht, RISE in der Beratung, im Unterricht und zum Vergleich von Betrieben und Betriebsgruppen einzusetzen. SMART erlaubt ein rasches Screening der betrieblichen Nachhaltigkeit und liefert dabei Ergebnisse, die sich auch zwischen Betrieben vergleichen und einfach an Dritte kommunizieren lassen. Die Wahl der geeigneten Methode hängt daher von der Fragestellung und der Zielgruppe ab

Editorial: Zooplankton and Nekton: Gatekeepers of the Biological Pump

International audienceEditorial on the Research Topic Zooplankton and Nekton: Gatekeepers of the Biological Pump Zooplankton and nekton organisms create and destroy particles in manifold ways. They feed on the diverse components of the plankton community and on detrital matter. They disaggregate these components, but also repackage them into fecal pellets. Zooplankton and nekton thereby contributes to the attenuation, but also to the export of vertically settling particles. Many zooplankton and nekton organisms also ascend to the surface layer of the ocean at dusk to feed during the dark hours, and return to midwater at the break of dawn. This diurnal vertical migration (DVM) shuttles organic matter from the surface ocean to deeper layers, where it is metabolized and excreted. This active flux (as opposed to the passive flux of sinking particles) can contribute substantially to the biological pump, the downward export of carbon and nutrients into the oceans interior. Due to their multiple roles in oceanic particle dynamics, zooplankton and nekton organisms can actually be considered the gatekeepers of the biological pump. Several articles in this Research Topic deal with the contribution of zooplankton and nekton-mediated active flux to the total export of organic matter. Using biomass and enzyme transport system (ETS) assessments of respiratory flux for both mesozooplankton and micronekton communities, Hernández-León et al. estimated the total active transport of carbon (respiration, excretion, mortality, and egestion) along a transect in the Atlantic from the Canary Islands to Brazil. They found that active flux by these communities ranged from 25 to 80% of the total particulate organic carbon export at 150 m depth and that the importance of active flux increased with increasing surface productivity. Kwong et al. compared biomass, diel vertical migration, and active flux of mesozooplankton and micronekton across a range of mesoscale eddy structures along the east-coast of Australia during winter and spring. They found that although all eddy regimes had similar integrated biomass of mesozooplakton and micronekton, the organisms in the individual eddies had different migratory behavior, which resulted in contrasting importance of active flux. Kiko et al. assessed the impact of mesozooplankton DVM on elemental cycling at three stations in the Eastern Tropical North Atlantic. They found that approximately 31 to 41% of the total nitrogen loss from the upper 200 m of the water column was attributable to DVM mediated fluxes. They also suggest that gut flux-the flux created by migrators when they evacuate their gut at DVM-depth-and migrator mortality at DVM-depth contribute to an Intermediate Particle Maximum. In their study conducted in the Peruvian upwelling system (which features a severe midwater oxygen minimum zone), Kiko and Hauss concluded that the metabolic suppressio

Mesure de la durabilité à l’échelle de l’exploitation: quel instrument dans quel but?

Trois méthodes développées en Suisse sont disponibles pour évaluer la durabilité au niveau de l’exploitation: RISE, SMART et SALCAsustain. Le présent article compare les trois méthodes à l’aide d’un catalogue de critères et de quelques exemples concrets afin d’aider le lecteur à choisir l’outil le mieux adapté à son application spécifique et à son groupe cible. Les trois méthodes couvrent toutes les dimensions de la durabilité et les résultats obtenus permettent de déduire des mesures d’amélioration et des décisions concrètes pour les groupes d’intérêt concernés. Les arguments exposés montrent que SALCAsustain convient pour répondre à des questions de recherche et analyser différentes stratégies de gestion d’exploitation. La force de RISE réside dans sa souplesse, qui permet de l’utiliser pour le conseil, l’enseignement et la comparaison d’exploitations et de groupes d’exploitations. SMART permet un examen rapide de la durabilité à l’échelle de l’exploitation et fournit des résultats qui peuvent également être comparés entre les exploitations et facilement communiqués à des tiers. Le choix de la méthode appropriée dépend donc de la problématique en jeu et du groupe cible

Assessing the Sustainability Performance of Organic and Low-Input Conventional Farms from Eastern Poland with the RISE Indicator System

The aim of this study was to examine the sustainability performance of organic and low-input conventional farms with the sustainability assessment tool—RISE 3.0. It is an indicator-based method for holistic assessment of sustainability of agricultural production at farm level. Ten organic and 10 conventional farms from eastern Poland, Lublin province were assessed. According to the thresholds levels of the RISE method, organic farms performed positively for 7 out of 10 themes, while the values of the other 3 topics, biodiversity, working conditions, and economic viability, were at medium level. Conventional farms reached positive scores for 9 out of 10 themes. The only middle-performing theme was biodiversity. None of the two farm types had the lowest, problematic scores for examined themes. For the theme biodiversity and two indicators (greenhouse gas balance and intensity of agricultural production), significant differences between farming systems were found. Biodiversity performance, an important indicator of sustainability, estimated with the RISE system, was highly correlated with measured on-field weed flora and Orthoptera biodiversity of farms. High soil acidity and low crop productivity, improper weed regulation, and energy management were the most common problems in both types of farms. Working hours and wage and income levels were also assessed as being low. Recommendations to improve the sustainability of both organic and conventional farms are presented