Experiences with the application, recordation and valuation of agri-environmental indicators in agricultural practice

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 443–451

Experiences with the application, recordation and valuation ofagri-environmental indicators in agricultural practice

Michael Menge∗Saxonian Landesanstalt fuer Landwirtschaft, Department for Soil and Plant Production, Gustav-Kuehn-Str. 8, 04159 Leipzig, Germany

Abstract

The Free State of Saxony has accompanied the programme “Umweltgerechte Landwirtschaft in Sachsen” (“Environmentallysound agriculture in Saxony”) and scientifically evaluated it, taking into consideration its effectiveness on market-relief,environmental-relief and income trends.

Along with a-biotic indicators, biotic indicators have been recorded and evaluated as well. The recordation was carriedthrough by the means of plot record lists which were kept in the farms. The valuation of the indicators’ effects is taking placeusing time series and the presentation of trends and variations of each year. This approach is suitable to determine the effectsof measures which are aimed at environmental-relief. Furthermore, information about the extent of influence a managementsystem has on the agri-environmental measure can be obtained.© 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Agri-environmental indicators; Biodiversity; Bare fallow land; Valuation

1. Introduction

For the implementation of the accompanying mea-sures of the 1992 EU-CAP (Common AgriculturalPolicy) reform, the Free State of Saxony has de-veloped and throughout the years regularly updatedthe programme “Umweltgerechte Landwirtschaft inSachsen” (UL) (Environmentally sound agriculture inSaxony). The high claim of the programme and theextraordinary readiness of farmers to participate leadto the consideration to have the programme scientif-ically accompanied by the Saxon Regional Authorityfor Agriculture since 1994. The aim behind is to eval-uate the effectiveness of the programme within the in-dividual incentive measures in terms of market-relief,

∗ Tel.: +49-341-9174-120; fax:+49-341-9174-111.E-mail address: [email protected](M. Menge).

environmental-relief and development of income. Thevaluation of the incentive measures was based on abi-otic and biotic criteria (agri-environmental indicators).

2. Material and methods

The programme “Environmentally sound agricul-ture in Saxony” supports the following measures inthe field of arable farming:

1. Basic support (BS)These are compulsory measures which have to

be performed on the farms’ entire area of arableland. These are:• non-transformation of meadowland into arable

land,• observance of a compatible well-balanced, at

least three-field crop rotation system,

0167-8809/$ – see front matter © 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00103-8

444 M. Menge / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 443–451

• cultivation of compatible varieties according tovariety tests on state level,

• observance of a defined livestock not exceeding2 LU (livestock unit) per hectare farmland,

• introduction and maintenance of fertilisationbased on the consultation programme BEFU(fertilisation input based on the specific needsof a plant),

• continuation of plant protecting measures withdecision-guidance/decision-making aids (con-sultation models).

2. BS and additional support I (BS+ AS I)20% reduction of N-fertilisation on the entire

agricultural area. Additionally, the farmer dis-penses with the application of growth regulators.

3. BS and additional support II (BS+ AS II)Plot-related, the following measures can be cho-

sen: intercropping, undersown crops, mulching.4. Ecological farming

In the whole farm, agriculture must be organisedaccording to requirements of the EEC-guideline2092/91.

A combination of the second and third incen-tive measure is possible. In the range of grassland/meadowland, measures aiming at a more extensiveproduction (reduced use of production means, latecrop use, etc.).

In 72 reference farms with altogether 2900 plotsof arable land and a total area of 45,377 ha whichare evenly spread in Saxony and which sufficientlyrepresent the different cultivation regions, plot-relatedproduction data reports will be evaluated. Addition-ally, microeconomic data is being collected. Per eachincentive measure, 12 farms will be compared with12 non-participating farms—which makes overall 72farms.

The following agro-environmental indicators arebeing recorded:

1. Abiotic factors• nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium balance

per plot and farm (kg/ha),• NO3-content in autumn on permanent testing

plots (kg/ha),• quantity of herbicides (per plot and farm)

(kg/ha),• amount of mechanical treatment measures per

farm (per plot),

• share of conserving soil cultivation measures perfarm (in % of the area per year),

• output date of liquid manure in spring/autumn(date).

2. Biotic indicators• diversity of crops per farm (number of cultivated

crops per year),• variety resistance and diversity per farm (resis-

tance index),• legume-share per farm (% and year),• wheat-share per farm (% and year),• duration of the bare fallow period (date),• plot size per farm (ha).

3. Other indicators• crop yield per farm (dt/ha),• contribution margin per farm (DM/ha),• subsidies per farm (DM/farm).

The data analysis will be made using methods ofdescriptive statistics. All indicators will be subject tothe following proceedings:

1st step. First, the plot-related technical data aboutproduction measures will be recorded foreach farm. Afterwards, the data of each in-dicator will be geometrically standardisedto obtain an area-related mean. All furthercalculations will be based on this ‘farmvalue’.

2nd step. Annually, the farm values for each indicatorexamined in an incentive measure will bearithmetically standardised and their meanvariation calculated.

3rd step. The annual mean values of the farms exam-ined and their dispersion in each incentivemeasure will be illustrated in a diagram or atable in order to show the development trendin the respective incentive measure.

Below, a more detailed description of the recor-dation of the biotic indicators per farm will begiven:

1. Crop diversityThe number of arable crops cultivated per farm

will be detected from the cultivation ratio.2. Variety resistance and diversity per farm

The resistance values of different pathogens(mildew, leaf septoria, spike fusariose, etc.)

M. Menge / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 443–451 445

determined in variety tests on state level willbe abstracted to a mean resistance index of onegrade. The values are 1= not diseased, 4–5=moderately diseased up to 8= heavily diseased.

Afterwards, the varieties cultivated of each sortof arable crop will be recorded from the plot cards,assigned to the index value of each variety, andpresented as overall mean per incentive measureand year. The minimum and maximum number ofthe cultivated crops is being presented and put inrelation to the index value.

3. Legume-share per farm, cereal-share per farmThe share of legume and cereals in the arable

land area of a farm is being derived from the cul-tivation ratio.

4. Duration of the bare fallow periodFor every plot the length of time between harvest

and re-cultivation plus 14 days (day of cultivationuntil the germination of the seeds) will be recorded.

5. Plot sizeA parcel of land is the smallest unit of a farm. It

can consist of one or more plots. Normally, a plot

Fig. 1. Mean number of cultivated crops (1995–2000). Basic support (BS) and additional support (AS).

forms a unit which is bordered by paths, hedges,rivers, streams or something comparable. The sur-faces of the plot will be recorded and averaged perfarm.

3. Results

The crop diversity in a farm can be described by thenumber of different arable crops which are cultivated.Fig. 1 shows that the participants in the programmecultivate on average 8–10 different crop varieties. Thisnumber varies throughout the years and among thefarms between 6 and 14 varieties.

In general, the non-participants cultivate less vari-eties; about 7–8 with a smaller variation. This is due tothe mean cereal share in the arable land area (Fig. 2).

On average, in ecological farming only 6–7 differentcrop varieties are being cultivated; the variation amongthe farms measures between 4 and 8 varieties. Thiscan be explained by the facts that on one hand, thesefarms show a higher share in perennial crops and on


Fig. 2. Mean share of wheat in the arable land area (1995–2000). Basic support (BS) and additional support (AS).

the other hand, some crops like maize, rape and sugarbeets are not cultivated in ecological farming. The highnumber of cultivated crops in Saxony results from theregulation that participants in the UL-programme haveto cultivate at least three different crop varieties. Dueto a higher share in pasture growing, the mixed farm-ing systems are in general characterised by a highernumber of cultivated crops.

The results for the mean cereal and legumeshares in the arable land area are very interesting.Non-participants show a smaller cereal share than theparticipants in the UL-programme. Interestingly, theecological farms cultivate about as much cereals inrelation to their farmland as other farms in Saxony.Concerning the mean legume share in the farmland, itcan be seen that over the years both, non-participantsas well as UL-participants have been growing anaverage legume-share of about 10% (Fig. 3). Thisshare varies with the market conditions with a down-ward trend. The ecological farms cultivate a shareof 33–45% of legume, a share which also underliesconsiderable fluctuations. The reason for this is that

market-oriented arable farms only grow grain legume,and mixed farming systems cultivate a high share oflucerne and clover–grass-mixtures for pasture produc-tion and in ecological farming systems additionallyfor nitrogen extraction.

In order to illustrate the genetic diversity within onevariety (here at the example of winter wheat), a graderesistance-index was created which was based on thevariety of resistance properties of each grade. Thiswas followed by an examination of the elevation ofthe resistance index per farm and per supporting level(Foerderstufe) in connection with the variation of thenumber of cultivated grades (Fig. 4).

It can be observed that over the years both, partici-pants and non-participants of the UL-programme, havechosen varieties that show more resistance propertiesin order to reduce the input of fungicides. It can alsobe seen that non-participants cultivate a significantlybroader spectrum of varieties as the participants of theprogramme. Participants were not allowed to grow cer-tain grades which have a high demand in plant protec-tive agents. Ecological farming shows about the same


Fig. 3. Mean share of legume in the arable land area (1995–2000). Basic support (BS) and additional support (AS).

resistance index as the rest of the participants but witha significantly lower grade variation. This originatesfrom the fact that in ecological farming, the advisoryinstitutions promote the cultivation of quality wheatin order to obtain higher prices. All in all, in can beseen that not only one but a variety of grades are be-ing cultivated. This contributes vitally to the geneticvariety within the variety of winter wheat.

With regard to biodiversity, the duration of the barefallow period is indirectly of great importance. The

Table 1Mean duration of the bare fallow period (days) within the different supporting levelsa

Supporting level Daysb

1994/1995 1995/1996 1996/1997 1997/1998 1998/1999 1994–1999

Without 52 65 47 53 26 49BS 45 38 48 40 43 43BS+ AS I 30 52 48 28 40 40BS+ AS II 37 44 36 40 28 37EF 67 45 44 43 47 49

a BS: basic support; AS: additional support; EF: ecological farming.b Period between ploughing and re-cultivation, at the longest until spring of the following year.

duration of the bare fallow period has a bearing on ni-trate elutriation, soil erosion, the number of cultivatedcrops as well as the all-year soil cover with greenplants (Table 1).

Compared with the non-participants, the partici-pants in the BS and those in the BS+ AS I wereable to reduce the duration of the bare fallow pe-riod by 12–19%. The BS+ AS II could reduce it by25–40%. This is due to a higher share of intercropsand mulching systems which were used. In ecological


Fig. 4. Variety resistance index of winter wheat depending on the supporting level (1995–2000).

farming, the duration of the bare fallow period aver-ages those of the non-participants.

Between the years, considerable fluctuations can benoticed. However, between the years of 1994 and 1999the duration of the bare fallow period shows a slightdecrease. This shows that supporting level “soil con-serving measures” (BS+ AS II), mulching, intercrop-ping, undersown crops have a positive effect on both,the farm and the environment.

In Saxony, the average plot size is about 17 ha(Fig. 5). With 48%, plot sizes between 5 and 20 ha arethe most common. About 85% of all plots have sizesbetween 1 and 35 ha. Throughout the years, the plotsizes stay approximately the same but vary betweenthe different supporting levels. Landscape-elementsbetween the plots and within the plots have not yetbeen recorded. However, they might take an estimateshare of 6–10% in the arable land area.

In the range of grassland, the number of plantsvarieties were permanently recorded on plots withand without KULAP-support between 1995 and 1998(Fig. 6). It can be noticed, that those not participat-ing in the KULAP show an average of 17 varietiesonly.

Participants in the KULAP—thus those who prac-tice an extensive farming system with support, areable to show between 19 and 21 varieties on aver-age, the share of herbs being larger than the one ofweeds, which itself is on the whole higher than at thenon-participants.

Interestingly, it could also be seen that from the160 plots in Saxony which are submitted to permanentobservation on those who are supported by KULAP15 species which are on the premonition list, threeendangered species and one highly endangered speciescould be verified (Table 2).


Fig. 5. Average plot size (1995–2000).

Table 2Species of the Saxon Red list and of its affix (premonition list,list of plants “endangerment suspected”)

Number of permanenttesting plots with

Total Thereof on plotssupported byKULAP I

Species, threatened by extinction (1) 1 0Highly threatened species (2) 12 1Threatened species (3) 16 3Premonition list (V) 41 15Endangerment suspected (G) 5 3

4. Discussion

Biodiversity is being characterised by the varietyof floristic and faunistic species, the genetic diversitywithin one species, as well as the variety of biotopesand biocoenosises. A complete illustration of this in-dicator is extremely complicated and elaborate. Anindicator which describes the impact of biodiversitydoes not yet exist. The recordation of wild living plantand animal species only is very elaborate and costly.

A declaration about the minimum degree of diversityin cultural landscape which should be achieved doesnot yet exist.

In general, studies on this subject only consider onespecies or genus, mostly disregarding the interactionbetween species or individuals.

In Saxony, the attempt was made to venture a firststep towards the recordation of biodiversity in thefields of agriculture. The recordation of the varietyof species, the genetic diversity and the variety ofbiotopes on agricultural land in the cultural land-scape is considerably easier and more cost-effectiveas on the whole of the biotic environment. In theKUL-system (Eckert et al., 1998) for instance, theshare of ecologically–culturally important areas arebeing evaluated. The acquisition of this data is in factquite elaborate, but it must only be carried throughonce and must in the following only be updated orsupplemented.

In Saxony, the criteria (indicators) crop diversityand variety resistance and diversity, share of legumeand wheat, duration of the bare fallow period, and plotsizes can be quite easily recorded with the aid of plot


Fig. 6. Number of grades (mean as pillar, minimum and maximum as vertical lines within the pillars) on permanent testing plots (PTPs)with KULAP I-support as well as without KULAP I, i.e. conventional utilisation, in Saxon farms (recordation 1995–1998).

record lists. There is no need for additional efforts.This data will be registered in a data storage, testedfor plausibility by experts, and then be available forevaluation.

From literature, a series of valuation approachesare known which act on the assumption that cer-tain marginal and reference/target values may notbe exceeded by the farms (Geier, 1999; Dimkic andSchumacher, 1999; Eckert et al., 1998).

A first complex approach is given by the survey“Abschaetzung der Auswirkungen transgener Sortenauf Umweltqualitaetsziele” (“Impact-assessmentof transgenetic grades on environmental qualityobjectives”, Werner et al., 1999). In this survey,biotope values for indicators were determined andcultivation measures biotically weighted.

In the Saxon programme “Umweltgerechte Land-wirtschaft in Sachsen” (“Environmentally soundagriculture in Saxony”,Menge et al., 2001), agro-environmental indicators and their impacts are not

being valuated on the basis of marginal, referenceor target values. In general, these values are sub-jectively predetermined, often insufficiently justifiedand not suitable to achieve the objective. In transientareas and sites, as well as in less favoured regionsthey lead to substantial problems in case of slightestclimatic or local variances. On the contrary, in theUL-programme, mean farm values and their variationare being specified. This makes it possible to deter-mine a present value which furthermore describeshow the management of the farms differs during theyears (variation of the single values).

If these mean farm values of one incentive measureare illustrated within a fixed timeframe, it is possibleto show a trend of the effects the incentive measure hastaken. The crucial point is that an environmental-reliefhas taken place (positive effects for the environmentcould be achieved). The extent of environmental-reliefis subject to regional and local peculiarities and can-not be described by a uniform marginal value. If an


environmental-relief cannot be detected, the incentivemeasure does not take effect and should be modu-lated. This message would then have to be transferredto agricultural policy.

5. Conclusion

For the implementation of the accompanying mea-sures of the 1992 EU-CAP (Common AgriculturalPolicy) reform, the Free State of Saxony has de-veloped and throughout the years regularly updatedthe programme “Umweltgerechte Landwirtschaft inSachsen” (UL) (Environmentally sound agriculture inSaxony).

Agro-environmental indicators and their impactsare not being valuated on the basis of marginal, ref-erence or target values. In general, these values aresubjectively predetermined, often insufficiently jus-tified and not suitable to achieve the objective. Intransient areas and sites, as well as in less favouredregions they lead to substantial problems in caseof slightest climatic or local variances. On the con-trary, in the UL-programme, mean farm values andtheir variation are being specified. This makes itpossible to determine a present value which further-more describes how the management of the farmsdiffers during the years (variation of the singlevalues).

If these mean farm values of one incentive measureare illustrated within a fixed timeframe, it is possibleto show a trend of the effects the incentive measure hastaken. The crucial point is that an environmental-reliefhas taken place (positive effects for the environmentcould be achieved). The extent of environmental-reliefis subject to regional and local peculiarities and can-not be described by a uniform marginal value. If anenvironmental-relief cannot be detected, the incentivemeasure does not take effect and should be modulated.

References

Dimkic, C., Schumacher, W.,1999. Umweltbewertungsverfahrenfuer die Landwirtschaft. Europaeische Union GD XI.

Eckert, H., Breitschuh, G., Sauerbeck, D., 1998. Kriterienumweltvertraeglicher Landbewirtschaftung—ein Verfahren zuroekologischen Bewertung von Landwirtschaftschaftsbetrieben.Agribiol. Res. 52 (1), 57–76.

Geier, U., 1999. Entwicklung von Parametern und Kriterien alsGrundlage zur Bewertung oekologischer Leistungen und Lastender Landwirtschaft—Indikationssysteme. ForschungsberichtUmweltbundesamt 42/99.

Menge, M., et al., 2001. Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen zumProgramm “Umweltgerechte Landwirtschaft in Sachsen”, Sch-riftenreihe der Saechsischen Landesanstalt fuer Landwirtschaft,1 (5).

Werner, A., Berger, G., Stachow, U., Glemnitz, M.,1999. Abschaetzungen der Auswirkungen transgener Sortenauf Umweltqualitaetsziele. Forschungsbericht ZALF e. V.Muencheberg.

Documents

Experiences with the application, recordation and valuation of agri-environmental indicators in agricultural practice