Search

This article presents the conceptual framework for assessing farm sustainability using the IDEA4 method. IDEA4 combines a dual assessment approach based on sustainable agriculture objectives and the properties of sustainable farming systems. It is rooted in the domains of strong sustainability, strong agroecology and the multifunctionality of agriculture. It takes into account the overall issues of sustainable agriculture. This conceptual framework has been used to construct 53 indicators for analysing farm sustainability using two complementary approaches. The first assesses sustainability by organising these 53 indicators according to the 3 normative dimensions of sustainable development (agroecological, socio-territorial, economic), structured into 13 components. This assessment relies on a scoring system based on 100 sustainability units for each of the 3 dimensions, which cannot offset each other. The second approach is used to assess sustainability by organising the same 53 indicators according to the 5 properties of sustainable agricultural systems (ability to produce and reproduce goods and services, autonomy, robustness, territorial embeddedness, and overall responsibility), which are arranged in a tree structure with 15 branches. Indicators are aggregated in a qualitative and hierarchical manner using the DEXi tool. The exploratory potential of the concept of the properties of sustainable systems encourages a transdisciplinary approach for assessing farms. IDEA4’s theoretical framework is now complemented by three information technology (IT) tools, which means that the method can be used to a much greater extent to support the agroecological transition.

Cet article propose d’analyser la manière dont la construction transdisciplinaire d’un projet de recherche, puis la mise en œuvre d’une démarche participative sur l’enjeu des pollutions diffuses agricoles de l’eau (nitrates et pesticides), constituent des espaces d’apprentissages. L’étude s’appuie sur une recherche participative menée sur le territoire de la Brie, en Seine-et-Marne, analysée en tant que processus permettant de transgresser les frontières disciplinaires, qui opposent de manière souvent arbitraire chercheurs et acteurs, et les frontières qui divisent les différentes parties prenantes d’un problème public. Les perceptions et les connaissances initiales des chercheurs et acteurs s’enrichissent à travers la participation. Les limites de ce processus et des inégalités d’apprentissages sont également identifiées.

Dans le domaine de la gestion de l’eau, la participation des acteurs locaux et la territorialisation des modes d’action sont devenus les maîtres-mots des politiques publiques. Cet article s’intéresse aux intermédiations permises par la démarche Co-click’eau. Celle-ci vise à accompagner, via la production d’une expertise collective, différents acteurs d’un territoire dans la prise de décision pour agir sur la pression agricole qui s’exerce sur la qualité de l’eau. Dans un contexte où l’agriculture est mise en cause dans le problème de la qualité des eaux, l’objectif de cet article est d’identifier la capacité de cette démarche, à partir de connaissances techniques et agronomiques construites localement et mobilisées dans la construction de scénarios, à aider les acteurs à élaborer un plan d’actions. Étudiant la mise en œuvre de la démarche dans trois territoires, nous montrons que les lieux de la participation institués par le cadrage national ne sont pas ceux où s’opèrent les traductions et intermédiations qui rendent possible l’action collective.

Realistic assessments of sustainability are often viewed as typical decision-making problems requiring multi-criteria decision-aid (MCDA) methods taking into account the conflicting objectives underlying the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability, and the different sources of knowledge representing them. Some MCDA-based studies have resulted in the development of sustainable agricultural systems, but the new challenges facing agriculture and the increasing unpredictability of their driving forces highlight the need for faster ex ante ('Before-the-event') assessment frameworks. These frameworks should also (i) provide a more realistic assessment of sustainability, by integrating a wider range of informal knowledge, via the use of qualitative information; (ii) address alternative scales, such as cropping system level, improving granularity for the handling of sustainability issues and (iii) target a larger panel of decision-makers and contexts. We describe here the MASC model, which is at the center of a framework addressing these objectives. The MASC model has at its core a decision tree that breaks the sustainability assessment decisional problem down into simpler units as a function of sustainability dimensional structure (economic, social and environmental), generating a vector of 32 holistic 'mixed' (quantitative and qualitative) elementary criteria rating cropping systems. The assessment process involves the calculation of these criteria, their homogenization into qualitative information for input into the model and their aggregation throughout the decision tree based on 'If-Then' decision rules, entered by the user. We present the model and describe its first implementation for the evaluation of four cropping systems generated from expert knowledge, and discuss its relevance to the objectives cited above. The MASC model has several advantages over existing methods, due to its ability to handle qualitative information, its transparency, flexibility and feasibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 1990s, numerous agri-environmental indicators and indicator-based methods have been developed to assess the adverse effects of cropping and farming systems such as water pollution by nitrates and pesticides, and gaseous emissions due to nitrogen inputs. This wealth of environmental indicators and assessment methods based on indicators raises issues on the quality of the methods and of the indicators, and on the relevancy of results. Evaluation and comparative studies are therefore needed to answer such issues. Here, we present four recent comparative studies selected for their illustrative value, first, to analyse the methodologies used for comparison of methods, and second, to highlight the main results of the four comparisons. The first study involves 23 indicators to address nitrate leaching. The second study involves 43 indicators to address pesticide risk. The third and fourth studies compare environmental assessment methods based on 4-5 indicators used in French and Upper Rhine plains (France, Germany and Switzerland). Both studies also compare the outputs of the methods and highlight the low degree of convergence between them. The approach proposed in the last study is the most elaborate among the four case studies. It could be used to develop a generic evaluation and comparison methodology. The review of those four case studies shows the need to formalise the methodology underlying any comparison work of indicators or evaluation methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The economic and regulatory context of crop production changes rapidly, but concerns about agricultural sustainability, including environmental impacts, are increasing steadily. To cope with complexity and uncertainty, innovative methodologies are required for designing, managing and evaluating prototype cropping systems. A generic approach combining iteratively design of cropping systems and evaluation of their performances is presented in this review article. It includes 5 main steps: (1) defining the set of goals and constraints for each cropping system, (2) identifying a suitable agronomic strategy, (3) formulating the consistent set of technical decision rules, (4) applying and evaluating the rule-based system, and (5) validating or refining the strategy and the rules. This methodology was applied to a range of environmental and production contexts, in a perspective of integrated crop production (ICP) prototyping. Three cropping system experiments conducted in France were brought together to demonstrate the potentialities of this system approach and discuss the methodological bottlenecks to address. The three case studies differed by the context of crop production and resource use: adaptation to limited irrigation water (Toulouse), introduction of innovative cropping systems (Versailles), and substitution of herbicides by non-chemical methods (Dijon). The consequences of the specific objectives in each case study on the experimental design and the evaluation process were discussed. Special attention was paid to the time step of the evaluation process, the duration of the improvement loops when prototyping cropping systems, the global evaluation of the systems and the evaluation of individual decision rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]