Search

DISCUSS, the Dual Indicator Set for Sustainable Crop protection Sustainability Surveys, was designed to help farmers achieve more sustainable crop protection. The indicator set pairs risk indicators--POCER--, with response indicators--a management questionnaire. Both parts of DISCUSS are indicators in their own right, but the dual risk-response setup has the additional trump that the questionnaire reveals farm level information, by which POCER calculations are refined. Simulations with personal protection and drift mitigation measures illustrate how DISCUSS can be used to support the farmers' crop protection decisions.

Background: Farmers are being called to use plant protection products (PPPs) more consciously and adopt more sustainable crop protection strategies. Indicators will help farmers to monitor their progress towards sustainability and will support their learning process. Talking the indicators through in farmers' discussion groups and the resulting peer encouragement will foster knowledge acquirement and can lead to changes in attitudes, norms, perception and behaviour., Results: Using a participatory approach, a conceptual framework for on-farm sustainable crop protection practices was created. The same participatory approach was used to design a dual indicator set, which pairs a pesticide impact assessment system (PIAS) with a farm inquiry. The PIAS measures the risk for human health and the environment exerted by chemical crop protection. The inquiry reveals the farmers' response to this risk, both in terms of the actions they take and their knowledge, awareness and attitude., Conclusions: The dual indicator set allows for implementation in four tiers, each representing increased potential for monitoring and social learning. The indicator set can be adjusted on the basis of new findings, and the participatory approach can be extrapolated to other situations., (Copyright © 2012 Society of Chemical Industry.)

Within the framework of the nitrate directive, member states have the opportunity to apply for derogation, i.e. increasing fertilisation standards under certain conditions. Several EU regions have utilised this opportunity, but each in a different way, resulting in six very different derogation policies within the EU in 2009. This paper focuses on the differences between the policies applied and makes an assessment with regard to the impact of these differences on the application rate for derogation, the manure surplus and the cost of allocating manure. Based on the MP-MAS model described by Van der Straeten et al. (2010) the different scenarios are applied on a single case area (Flanders) and the economic effects have been simulated. Results show considerable differences between the policy alternatives, leading to the conclusion that member states not only have to focus on whether or not to allow derogation, but also on the actual details of the derogation policy. Granting derogation at parcel level (plot of land), instead of farm level, increases the potential effect of derogation; the level of increase in fertilisation standards under derogation determines the application rate for derogation: a higher increase leads to a higher application rate., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Appropriate assessment of firm sustainability facilitates actor-driven processes towards sustainable development. The methodology in this paper builds further on two proven methodologies for the assessment of sustainability performance: it combines the sustainable value approach with frontier efficiency benchmarks. The sustainable value methodology tries to relate firm performance to the use of different resources. This approach assesses contributions to corporate sustainability by comparing firm resource productivity with the resource productivity of a benchmark, and this for all resources considered. The efficiency is calculated by estimating the production frontier indicating the maximum feasible production possibilities. In this research, the sustainable value approach is combined with efficiency analysis methods to benchmark sustainability assessment. In this way, the production theoretical underpinnings of efficiency analysis enrich the sustainable value approach. The methodology is presented using two different functional forms: the Cobb-Douglas and the translog functional forms. The simplicity of the Cobb-Douglas functional form as benchmark is very attractive but it lacks flexibility. The translog functional form is more flexible but has the disadvantage that it requires a lot of data to avoid estimation problems. Using frontier methods for deriving firm specific benchmarks has the advantage that the particular situation of each company is taken into account when assessing sustainability. Finally, we showed that the methodology can be used as an integrative sustainability assessment tool for policy measures.

The importance of risk perception and risk attitude for understanding individual’s risk behaviour are independently well described in literature, but rarely combined in an integrated approach. In this study, we propose a model assuming the choice to implement certain risk management strategies to be directly driven by both perceptions of risks and risk attitude. Other determinants influence the intention to apply different risk strategies mainly indirectly, mediated by risk perception and risk attitude. This conceptual model is empirically tested, using structural equation modelling, for understanding the intention of farmers to implement different common risk management strategies at their farms. Data are gathered in a survey completed by 500 farmers from the Flanders region in Belgium, investigating attitudes towards farming, perceived past exposure to risk, socio-demographic characteristics, farm size, perceptions of the major sources of farm business risk, risk attitudes and the intention to apply common risk management strategies. Our major findings are: (i) perception of major farm business risks have no significant impact on the intention of applying any of the risk strategies under study, (ii) risk attitude does have a significant impact. Therefore, rather than objective risk faced and the subjective interpretation thereof, it is the general risk attitude that influence intended risk strategies to be implemented. A distinction can be made between farmers willing to take risk, who are more inclined to apply ex-ante risk management strategies and risk averse farmers who are less inclined to implement ex-ante risk management strategies but rather cope with the consequences and diminish their effects ex-post when risks have occurred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frequently acknowledged as coming forward to environmental issues by reducing external input use, low input (LI) dairy farming is gaining attention. The absence of a clearly delineated description of LI dairying, however, hampers identification and analysis of these farming systems. This paper aims at empirically examining, EU wide, the farm structure, production intensity and productivity of LI with respect to their high input (HI) conventional counterpart and to organic dairying (ORG). A pragmatic quartiles-based categorization of farms from the Farm Accountancy Data Network of 20 important EU dairy countries, with the value of external input costs per grazing livestock unit (GLU) is used as prior discriminating indicator between LI and HI. LI dairy farms are smaller than HI dairy farms, in particular when farm size is expressed as total farm capital. Other variables that differentiate between LI and HI in most countries are number of dairy cows per GLU and area of forage and grassland on total agricultural area. Partial productivities in HI farms exceed those in LI farms, most apparent is milk production per cow. Differentiation of forage production between LI and HI is less uniform throughout Europe. A pairwise matching of differentiation profiles between countries indicates that differentiation between LI and HI is country specific. A similar diversity in country-specific differentiation between ORG and LI farming is found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]