Search

The alignment of the environmental, economic and social sustainability of farms is necessary for enhancing the provision of public goods in farming. This study combines the use of three tools for the assessment of farm sustainability. It provides first insights into the sustainability performance of farms at different stages of agro-ecological transitions in 15 case studies covering a range of different farming systems across Europe. Each case study reflects a different-transition towards agro-ecological farming. The tools applied were COMPAS (an economic farm assessment tool); Cool Farm Tool (a greenhouse gas inventory, water footprint and biodiversity assessment tool); and the SMART Farm Tool (a multidimensional sustainability assessment tool)., First results of the use of combined sustainability assessments deepen the understanding of different farming systems. Sustainability performance varies greatly between farms, but overall, agro-ecological farms tend to enhance biodiversity and water quality. For soil quality, no clear patterns could be identified. The same applies to economic performance at different stages of the agro-ecological transition. Quality of life was generally rated medium to high on all investigated farms. The combined sustainability assessment enabled the identification of areas for further policy development., Aligning the tools required harmonising definitions, simplification and assumptions with regard to the input data of the tools., Landbauforschung: Journal of Sustainable and Organic Agricultural Systems, 70 (2), ISSN:2700-8711, ISSN:2194-3605

The overall aim of the UNISECO project is to provide recommendations on how the sustainability of agro-ecological farming systems (AEFS) in Europe can be promoted. These recommendations build upon multi-actor engagement and practice-validated strategies. The project explores both of these approaches in 15 case studies across Europe. Every case study reflects an AEFS at a certain point of transition towards agro-ecological farming systems. A first step in all of the case studies was to characterize the status quo of the farm systems. Along with other methods to describe the status quo, three decision support tools (DST) were applied in the case studies to provide information on the environmental, economic and social performance of current AEFS. The tools applied were COMPAS, an economic performance assessment tool, Cool Farm Tool, a greenhouse gas inventory tool, and SMART, a multidimensional sustainability tool. This deliverable presents the overall approach taken to assess the farms along the agro-ecological transition, describes the tools, and presents results from their application in the case studies. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 773901.

In Italy, olive farming is one of the most interesting examples of carbon sink in agricultural soils. The olive agro-ecosystems can in fact ensure effective action in CO2 fixation encouraging the process of carbon storage on the organic matter of the soil. Starting from the assumption that a different and more “carbon oriented†management of Italian olive groves system could represent a promising way to increase the carbon stored in agricultural land, this paper explores the possibility to implement a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme to increase the provision of carbon sink by olive groves. The analysis focuses on the definition of the sealable ecosystem service, according to the actual policy framework and on the mode of payment that could be established. Results, suggest that an output-based payment, though more environmentally efficient, could not be enough to incentivise farmers to join the PES, as the payment per hectare might be lower using this approach.

Interest towards farmland market has been increasing in recent years. In developing countries there is a rising concern about land being purchased by foreign investors, while in the developed world the debate is focused on whether agricultural factors are still the main determinants of land values or not. This work assesses the determinants of land values in Italy using TSCS data techniques during the time span 1992-2013. In Italy farmland values have historically been influenced more by natural characteristics of the land than agricultural prices. However, lately non-agricultural factors have been increasing their importance. We find that the main determinants of Italian farmland prices are population density, GDP per capita, land productivity, agricultural prices and farm subsidies. In the case of vineyards, changing rainfall patterns due to climate change have also a significant impact. Environmental regulations for livestock farms positively affects arable land values.

The environmental impact assessment of rural development policies is an issue that needs to be constantly monitored by both practitioners and policy makers within the EU and its Member States. Impact assessment methodologies are well established in the literature on agri-environmental policies, both at micro and macro scale, considering different public goods (water, biodiversity, etc.) as specific foci of these policies. However, there are several challenges and gaps related to their use, concerning both the fitness of indicators, models and methodologies for the expected outcomes, and the adoption of the most suitable scale for the analysis. This report presents a conceptual framework in order to systematise the most commonly used methodologies to assess micro-level environmental performance of agricultural policies. It deals with issues relating to the specific use for some methodologies (or models, or indicators) for a single public good, aiming to contribute to systematise the current knowledge on evaluation methods. It tries to clarify the role of methodologies and their integration in the evaluation process, particularly to fill the gap of knowledge of the agriculture-environment relationships within the complexity of multi-scale and multi-levels approaches. From a micro-level perspective, it is important to consider the role of individuals and analyse in depth the different forms of organisation (spatial, networks, hierarchies) and interactions among different organisational and intervening levels. Only with multi-scale integration and the combination of results it is possible to efficiently generalise (up-scale) micro-level results in a macro-level perspective. Field measurements, farm management surveys and farming system models essentially refer to the farm as the simplest management unit of an agricultural system, analysed from the point of view of a farmer who decides whether or not to participate in rural development schemes. In most of the case study areas only naïve quantitative analysis has been applied due to difficulties in data availability and data access, with negative effects from the methodological point of view when the statistical significance of the parameters was not verified. The statistics-based approach to the counterfactual needs well-defined samples with a sufficient number of observations to perform regression models and spatial analysis.

The purpose of the ENVIEVAL Handbook is to provide guidance on a methodological framework for use in the evaluation of the environmental impacts of RDP measures and programmes. The Handbook provides flexible guidance to evaluators and managing authorities on a process for designing evaluations of the net effects of RDP measures and is not an ‘off the shelf’ recipe book. It focuses on the establishment of a suitable counterfactual and the delivery of an assessment of net effects with a requirement for consistency between micro and macro level evaluations. The Handbook presents a range of possible solutions (e.g. counterfactual scenario setup or choice of appropriate methods for data analysis) with an aim of selecting the most appropriate options for use in evaluations. The output is a basis for deciding on the most consistent and cost-effective approach. The Handbook is developed around a logic model of the process of assessing the environmental effects of RDP measures. It functions as a methodological framework, guiding the evaluator and managing authority through the design of the evaluation, suggesting different routes depending upon factors such as data availability or type of indicator selected. The step-by-step flow of the logic model(s) helps in the design of a consistent evaluation workflow. An aim of the Handbook is to help the evaluator to design the ex-ante evaluation in the overall context of the programme, and RDPs and area of interest, in a step-by-step guide for mid-term and ex-post assessments. Competent authorities can use the handbook as support for the overall design of the Terms of References for RDP evaluations. The ENVIEVAL Handbook summarizes the key characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of evaluation methods recommended, or available, for use in addressing the evaluation of net effects and environmental impacts with respect to a range of public goods. The conceptual description of the different evaluation steps is supported by practical examples of their application and fact sheets of the indicators and methods tested in the ENVIEVAL project which provide information about how to address evaluation challenges, as defined by stakeholders. This handbook compliments the range of guidance documents dedicated to the evaluation of RDPs, in particular those developed by the European Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development.

The main aim of the report is to provide an overview of the results of the case studies testing a range of indicators and methods for the evaluation of rural development measures and Rural Development Programme (RDP) impacts on environmental public goods, and to derive recommendations for adjustments to the methodological framework in WP3 to WP5 as a basis for the methodological handbook (Morkvenas et al., 2015). &nbsp

The final outcome of the ENVIEVAL project is a handbook for the evaluation of environmental impacts of RDPs summarising the key characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of the different developed and tested indicators and evaluation methods in response to the main evaluation challenges. An important part of the handbook is the fact sheets for the different indicators and evaluation tools. The fact sheets are the final outcome of WP8 and provide a short summary of the main characteristics of the indicators and methods tested in the ENVIEVAL project. They provide information on why and for which policy aspects the indicators or methods can be used, and where the required data can be sourced and obtained. The fact sheets summarise the strengths and weaknesses of the indicators and methods, and highlight their contribution to addressing the main challenges. An adjusted ‘SWOT’ framework is used to synthesise the key advantages, disadvantages and contributions of the indicator / method. The general structure of the indicator and method fact sheets is as follows: Indicator fact sheets: Definition / description of the indicator, including environmental public good, type of indicator, reflected RDP priority and focus area, unit of measurement, type of data required and scale and level of application Existing data sources including EU, member states and regional databases Context of the case study testing, including case study area, policy context, used data and evaluation approach tested Strengths and weaknesses of the indicator Recommended application Method fact sheets: Definition / description of the method, including the environmental public good, type of method, micro or macro level application General requirements Including data requirements and skill requirements Consideration of counterfactuals Context of the case study testing, including case study area, policy context, used data and evaluation approach tested Strengths and weaknesses of the method Recommended application The indicator fact sheets focus on additional non-CMES indicator tested in the ENVIEVAL project for their contributions to address indicator gaps in environmental evaluations of RDPs. The method fact sheets focus on advanced modelling approaches tested at micro and macro level for dealing with the complexity of public goods, considering other intervening factors and providing solutions for situations without (or very limited) non-participants. The fact sheets were reviewed by the stakeholder reference group and their comments and feedback integrated in the final version of the fact sheets. In addition, a selection of fact sheets was presented and discussed at the final project conference in Brussels on the 19th of November 2015.

Evaluations of environmental impacts of RDPs are characterized by a number of methodological challenges. However, recent methodological developments have improved the understanding and capacity of analysing the impacts of farming and forestry on the provision of public goods. Against this background, the main aim of ENVIEVAL is to develop and test improved tools for the evaluation of environmental impacts of rural development measures and programmes in EU Member States. The main innovative aspects of the new methodological frameworks are that they enable the integration of micro- and macro-level evaluations (and their results) and provide guidance on the selection and application of costeffective evaluation methods to estimate net effects of rural development programmes on the different main public goods from farming and forestry.

Interest towards farmland market has been increasing in recent years. In developing countries there is rising concern about land being purchased by foreign investors, while in the developed world the debate is centred on whether agricultural factors are still the main determinants of land values or not. This work assesses the determinants of land values in Italy using panel data techniques during the time span 1992-2010. In Italy farmland values have historically been influenced more by natural characteristics of the land than agricultural prices. However, lately non-agricultural factors have been increasing their importance. We find that agricultural prices only slightly affect average land values in Italy. Main determinants of land prices are the yield from real estate investment, GDP per capita, house prices, and population density. For arable land also environmental regulations for livestock farms positively affects values.

As policy makers, taxpayers and consumers are willing to know the actual contribution of farming to natural and social environment, sustainability and sustainable development arose as key issues in public debates. Sustainability is a multifaceted concept that includes environmental, economic and social objectives and policy makers need information to take effective decisions. Analysts should rank decisional units according to sustainability criteria and should offer to policy makers more and more insights on the different points of view behind the three dimensions of sustainability. Within the current FADN database sustainability indicators have been identified. In some cases estimations have been necessary and in some other cases thanks to allocation of costs (crop protection and fertilizers), to the registration of physical information (quantities of fertilizers) and to other details assembled with the Italian methodology (irrigation system, socio-demographic information) indicators have been directly derived. Starting from a multi-criteria matrix a Sustainability Farm Index (SuFI) has been calculated at farm level. The methodology has been applied to the regional FADN sample of Veneto of 2009. The current FADN database has demonstrated to be a valuable source of information to monitor the environmental and social farm assets, beside the economic one. However, additional informative modules seem necessary to integrate the current set of information in order to describe comprehensively the environmental and social aspects of agricultural holdings in the context of the assessment of sustainable development.

The main objective of this communication is to review the theoretical ecosystem and agroecosystem services assessment’s methods and to propose a thermoeconomic approach. The logic of thermoeconomic approach consists in analysing the use of natural resources during the production process, interpreting it as a thermodynamic conversion in order to assess the overall specific energy consumption of the systemic components arriving at estimates of fluxes and energy costs. This study analyses comparatively the main thermoeconomic-based approaches to verify the feasibility of the "energy value" as an appraisal criterion of agroecosystem services. In particularly among the reviewed approaches the Emergy synthesis seems the most appropriate tool to be empirically applied on the study of agricultural systems even at the farm level, and this in particular taking into account the new architecture of the database of the Italian FADN, although they are complementary tools to traditional methods of decision analysis.

In the ongoing debate of CAP reform, a new tool was proposed for farms that aims to create a new market for ecosystem goods and services that may be provided by agriculture. The mechanism of floor and trade (FT) assigns each holding a "minimum of environmental goods" that must be provided at farm level to ensure sustainability and justifies the subsides received from CAP. In this proposal we will analyse what might happen in a limited region (Veneto) with the application of FT mechanism, given the geographical conditions and the structural situation of farms, using FADN data. More precisely, we seek to quantify the regional supply curve of environmental services, provided by agricultural activities in case of floor and trade mechanism. We will use as a proxy the amount of carbon that could be sequestered by less intensive farming systems such as grassland and pastures, compared with other more intensive activities, in order to examine the trade-off between the economic goals of farmers and the environmental benefits due to the land use change provided by FT. We will use as methodology the Minimum Data (MD) approach in order to integrate the spatial heterogeneity of the biophysical environment of the different agroecosystems, with economic behaviour of farmers in case of the obligations imposed by the FT mechanism

The overall aim of the UNISECO project is to provide recommendations on how the sustainability of agro-ecological farming systems (AEFS) in Europe can be promoted. These recommendations build upon multi-actor engagement and practice-validated strategies. The project explores both of these approaches in 15 case studies across Europe. Every case study reflects an AEFS at a certain point of transition towards agro-ecological farming systems. A first step in all of the case studies was to characterize the status quo of the farm systems. Along with other methods to describe the status quo, three decision support tools (DST) were applied in the case studies to provide information on the environmental, economic and social performance of current AEFS. The tools applied were COMPAS, an economic performance assessment tool, Cool Farm Tool, a greenhouse gas inventory tool, and SMART, a multidimensional sustainability tool. This deliverable presents the overall approach taken to assess the farms along the agro-ecological transition, describes the tools, and presents results from their application in the case studies. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 773901.

Story maps are a specific form of website to tell stories by making use of multimedia elements such as pictures, maps and videos. The purpose of story maps in UNISECO is to share the results of the assessment of social-ecological systems (SES) in the case studies with a wider public. The story maps also build on the results of sustainability assessments in Task 3.2 (Landert et al., 2019) and the governance and network assessment in Task 5.2 (Vanni et al., 2019). These story maps comprise easily understood messages from farmers, rural communities and civil society, businesses and authorities referencing environmental, social, economic and governance issues across rural areas in 15 countries of Europe. The story maps were the basis for co-constructing strategies to support transition of farming systems towards agroecology. The final UNISECO outcomes informed then again an update of existing and new story maps, leading to an updated set of story maps published on the website of the European Network for Rural Development, on WWF Globil and in Deliverable D3.6.

Agro-ecological approaches are fundamental for sustainable food production in the future, and the overarching objective of UNISECO is to co-develop improved and practice-validated strategies and incentives for the promotion of improved agro-ecological approaches. The key dilemma is how to produce public goods whilst maintaining viable production of private goods, securing economic and social sustainability at a farm level. In this context, it is important to identify the farm management changes and innovative agro-ecological practices with win-win relationships and those with fewer trade-offs between social, ecological and economic dimensions. In this report (Deliverable report D3.5), we investigate this question by exploring, in thirteen European case studies, the sustainability implications of implementing a range of different agro-ecological practices (AEPs) as part of different transitions strategies towards more sustainable agriculture. We implemented an analytical framework including the use of decision support tools (DSTs) to convey process-based information on the performance of 28 different AEPs, co-developed with local stakeholders, that are expected to improve the resilience and sustainability of farms. In particular, through the DSTs we identified and analysed 17 sustainability indicators that convey information on the potential environmental and socio-economic synergies and trade-offs, arising from the implementation of different AEPs at farm level. We classified different AEPs across three different categories: i) Efficiency increase, ii) Substitution practices, and iii) Farm re-design. The category “Efficiency increase” included technological AEPs such as the installation of weather stations to integrate real time pest monitoring with fast prevention activities in vineyards, or improvement of mineral balance in ruminant diets through the provision of enriched boluses, or the re-configuration of canopies in tree orchards to enhance their productivity and resilience. Overall, these AEPs showed only win-win situations generated from livestock and crop health and yield provision. The category “substitution practices” included the simulation of distinct AEPs, such as soil organic fertilization, use of biofertilizers and biofuels, as well as more complex strategies such as organic agriculture. Overall, this category emphasised the centrality for agro-ecological practices in reducing the use of external inputs and the simultaneous improvement in the quality and use-efficiency of input at farm level. Depending on the approach applied in the simulation of the AEPs, the transition from mineral to organic fertilization generated trade-offs between the increase of biodiversity benefits and the provision of yield, and between the carbon footprint and yield at farm level. Finally, the “re-design” category includes single or bundle of AEPs, which are aimed at soil conservation and biodiversity benefits and increasing the diversification of farming systems. These included conservation agriculture practices, such as reduced tillage, permanent soil cover through cover crops or mulching, and intercropping with nitrogen fixing crops, the extensification of mixed crop-livestock systems, and more complex farm re-design driven by the reorganization of the resources in the farms and the reshuffling of arrangements ‘downstream’ of farms. Given the heterogeneity of this category, the environmental and socio-economic sustainability of the above agro-ecological strategies depended on several external factors such as farm type and size, initial farm infrastructure, as well as the dilemmas and objectives characterising the agricultural decision context in each case study. In this report, we outline the effect on the relationships between different farm-level sustainability indicators, as a result from the implementation of agro-ecological practices. UNISECO is a European research project aiming to develop innovative approaches to enhance the understanding of socio-economic and policy drivers and barriers for further development and implementation of agro-ecological practices in EU farming systems. Learn more about the project: https://uniseco-project.eu/ This project has received funding from the European Union's H2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 773901. This publication reflects only the authors' view and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Story maps are a specific form of website to tell stories by making use of multimedia elements such as pictures, maps and videos. The purpose of story maps in UNISECO is to share the results of the assessment of social-ecological systems (SES) in the case studies with a wider public. The story maps also build on the results of sustainability assessments in Task 3.2 (Landert et al., 2019) and the governance and network assessment in Task 5.2 (Vanni et al., 2019). These story maps comprise easily understood messages from farmers, rural communities and civil society, businesses and authorities referencing environmental, social, economic and governance issues across rural areas in 15 countries of Europe. The story maps were the basis for co-constructing strategies to support transition of farming systems towards agroecology. The final UNISECO outcomes informed then again an update of existing and new story maps, leading to an updated set of story maps published on the website of the European Network for Rural Development, on WWF Globil and in Deliverable D3.6.

Agro-ecological approaches are fundamental for sustainable food production in the future, and the overarching objective of UNISECO is to co-develop improved and practice-validated strategies and incentives for the promotion of improved agro-ecological approaches. The key dilemma is how to produce public goods whilst maintaining viable production of private goods, securing economic and social sustainability at a farm level. In this context, it is important to identify the farm management changes and innovative agro-ecological practices with win-win relationships and those with fewer trade-offs between social, ecological and economic dimensions. In this report (Deliverable report D3.5), we investigate this question by exploring, in thirteen European case studies, the sustainability implications of implementing a range of different agro-ecological practices (AEPs) as part of different transitions strategies towards more sustainable agriculture. We implemented an analytical framework including the use of decision support tools (DSTs) to convey process-based information on the performance of 28 different AEPs, co-developed with local stakeholders, that are expected to improve the resilience and sustainability of farms. In particular, through the DSTs we identified and analysed 17 sustainability indicators that convey information on the potential environmental and socio-economic synergies and trade-offs, arising from the implementation of different AEPs at farm level. We classified different AEPs across three different categories: i) Efficiency increase, ii) Substitution practices, and iii) Farm re-design. The category “Efficiency increase” included technological AEPs such as the installation of weather stations to integrate real time pest monitoring with fast prevention activities in vineyards, or improvement of mineral balance in ruminant diets through the provision of enriched boluses, or the re-configuration of canopies in tree orchards to enhance their productivity and resilience. Overall, these AEPs showed only win-win situations generated from livestock and crop health and yield provision. The category “substitution practices” included the simulation of distinct AEPs, such as soil organic fertilization, use of biofertilizers and biofuels, as well as more complex strategies such as organic agriculture. Overall, this category emphasised the centrality for agro-ecological practices in reducing the use of external inputs and the simultaneous improvement in the quality and use-efficiency of input at farm level. Depending on the approach applied in the simulation of the AEPs, the transition from mineral to organic fertilization generated trade-offs between the increase of biodiversity benefits and the provision of yield, and between the carbon footprint and yield at farm level. Finally, the “re-design” category includes single or bundle of AEPs, which are aimed at soil conservation and biodiversity benefits and increasing the diversification of farming systems. These included conservation agriculture practices, such as reduced tillage, permanent soil cover through cover crops or mulching, and intercropping with nitrogen fixing crops, the extensification of mixed crop-livestock systems, and more complex farm re-design driven by the reorganization of the resources in the farms and the reshuffling of arrangements ‘downstream’ of farms. Given the heterogeneity of this category, the environmental and socio-economic sustainability of the above agro-ecological strategies depended on several external factors such as farm type and size, initial farm infrastructure, as well as the dilemmas and objectives characterising the agricultural decision context in each case study. In this report, we outline the effect on the relationships between different farm-level sustainability indicators, as a result from the implementation of agro-ecological practices. UNISECO is a European research project aiming to develop innovative approaches to enhance the understanding of socio-economic and policy drivers and barriers for further development and implementation of agro-ecological practices in EU farming systems. Learn more about the project: https://uniseco-project.eu/ This project has received funding from the European Union's H2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 773901. This publication reflects only the authors' view and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.