assessing the sustainability of agriculture at the ...221481/jem_ag_sustainability.pdf · journal...

Journal of Environmental Management (1998) 52, 15–37

Assessing the sustainability ofagriculture at the planning stage

C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald

This paper reviews the current state of knowledge in defining sustainable agriculture within the broadersphere of sustainable development. We conclude that agricultural sustainability encompasses biophysical,economic and social factors operating at the field, farm, watershed, regional and national scales.

The immediate challenge is to determine what are sustainable agricultural uses before they areimplemented—at the planning stage. The final section outlines a framework within which current landevaluation, environmental impact and strategic environmental assessment approaches to land use planningmay be extended, and argues that these approaches must include, from the beginning, sustainabilitycriteria.

The framework for integrated sustainability assessment encompasses a mosaic of factors and hierarchyof scales important to agricultural sustainability. The keys to this framework are characterizing sustainabilityindicator groups and identifying ‘threats’ to sustainable practice. In this way, the framework can be seenas a guide for unsustainability assessment using indicators. 1998 Academic Press Limited

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, land use planning, land evaluation, sustainable de-velopment.

But what is sustainable agriculture? ThisIntroductionpaper addresses this question to meet therequirements of development planners who

The World Commission on Environment and need to understand, ex ante, the sus-Development (the Brundtland Commission) tainability of alternative land uses.offered the most widely used definition of Many have investigated the requirementssustainable development: of sustainable agriculture and most agree

that food sufficiency, environmental stew-‘Humanity has the ability to make de-ardship, socio-economic viability and equityvelopment sustainable—to ensure that it

meets the needs of the present generation are important ingredients. But philosophicalwithout compromising the ability of fu- definitions are relatively easy to state. Op-ture generations to meet their own needs. erational definitions and methodologies toThe concept of sustainable development

allow them to be applied in agriculturaldoes imply limits—not absolute limits butpolicy making and planning are much morelimitations imposed by the present state

of technology and social organisation on difficult to determine.environmental resources and by the abil- The most advanced practical approaches toity of the biosphere to absorb the effects sustainable agriculture focus on the inverseof human activities’ (WCED, 1990, p9).

problem—what is unsustainable? This is amore manageable proposition because theDespite the variety of definitions, or per-

haps because of it, sustainable development evidence for unsustainability, even if diag- The Department ofGeographical Sciencesis now the dominant paradigm guiding de- nosed regrettably late, is clearer. The mostand Planning, The

velopment planning. Given the importance common methodologies use sustainability in- University of Queensland,St Lucia, 4072,of agriculture as the ultimate provider of dicators. These are valuable for assessing theQueensland, Australia.food, fibre and shelter for the human popu- sustainability of agricultural systems but are

lation, no sector has a greater role in moving not adequate for the assessment of new land Received 24 July, 1996;accepted 27 July, 1997towards development that is sustainable. use options without a guiding framework.

0301–4797/98/010015+23 $25.00/0/ev970162 1998 Academic Press Limited

C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald16

The key questions needing answers for Sustainable agricultureagricultural land use planning include ‘whatareas can be opened up for agricultural land As with sustainable development, sus-use’ and ‘using what land use practices’? In tainable agriculture is a multi-dimensionalproposing a framework for assessing agri- concept, which has led to an array of defin-cultural sustainability at the planning stage, itions. Smit and Smithers (1993) discussthis paper aims to assist planners in an- some interpretations of sustainable agri-swering these questions given the present culture and explain why they differ, con-understanding of sustainability as a multi- cluding that the main cause of confusiondimensional and multiscaled concept. is people’s perception of what constitutes

‘agriculture’ and ‘sustainability’.

Sustainabledevelopment—the foundation Defining agriculturefor sustainable agriculture

The attributes of agriculture range from spe-Of the many interpretations of the concept of cific soil-plant interactions at the field level,sustainable development, two seem to pre- to international trading arrangements at thedominate in the literature. These are the global level (Table 1).wealth approach and the mosaic approach. From a biophysical perspective, agri-The wealth approach states that if de- culture is based on plant growth and howvelopment is to be sustainable, it must fully different conditions such as soil fertility, cli-appreciate the value of natural and built cap- mate and pests affect it. The focus is on howital so that the next generation can inherit a various management practices and en-stock of assets no less than those we inherited vironmental conditions affect yield. Muchourselves, thereby maintaining ‘intergener- research on agricultural sustainability hasational equity’ (Pearce et al., 1989). There are addressed the prospects for maintaining ortwo variations of the wealth approach. improving current levels of biophysical pro-Firstly, weak sustainability, which allows ductivity.man-made and natural capital to be sub- From an economic perspective, agriculturestitutes, and secondly, strong sustainability, is an enterprise at the farm level and anwhich requires that natural capital assets not important economic sector at the regionaldecline through time (Pearce et al., 1993). or national level. Economic sustainability is

While sustainable development can be ex- considered in terms of the costs of productionplained in terms of ‘wealth inheritance’, it is and the prospects for continued economicgenerally accepted that the concept has dis- viability in the face of changing en-tinct ecological, economic and social com- vironmental, social and economic conditions.ponents (Anon, 1990). This is the mosaic Finally, from a social perspective, agri-approach to sustainable development. The culture is viewed at the macro scale as amosaic approach breaks sustainable de- producer with a focus on its ability to satisfyvelopment into three main components: requirements for food and fibre. Sus-

tainability is associated with the prospects• ecological sustainability which requiresof meeting national and global food and fibrethat development is compatible with theneeds, quality and security of food supplies,maintenance of ecological processes;transfer of technology, and efficiency and• economic sustainability which requiresfairness of food distribution systems.that development be economically feas-

Different perspectives depend on the spa-ible; and,tial scale being considered. At the field scale,• social sustainability which requires thatagriculture is mostly about soil conditions,development be socially acceptable.nutrient levels, water availability and plantgrowth. At the farm scale, agriculture meansThe mosaic approach to sustainable de-crop and livestock production, managementvelopment forms the philosophical basis for

this discussion on sustainable agriculture. practices and the structure and viability of

Assessing the sustainability of agriculture 17

Table 1. Meaning of agriculture by dimension and scale (Smit and Smithers, 1993)

Dimension Scale

Micro Meso Macro

Natural resource base continental wateragroecosystems, and land

field level soil regional land resources, globalfertility, moisture capability climate

Crop production regionalfield yield, production, land global food andmanagement use patterns fibre supplies

Economic return farm level regionalproduction costs, economy, valueviability, capital of production, trade marketing,outlay distribution policies, politics

Rural community farm level tenure, rural economyfamily size and function, global poverty,involvement, access to food, hunger, equity,communication facilities politics

farm operations. At the regional scale, agri- within the constraints of profitability. Thesecond view was ‘sustainability as stew-culture is a key element in natural resource

use and land use patterns. At national and ardship’, defined in terms of controlling en-vironmental damage. The third view wasglobal scales, agriculture involves trade,

equity and food sufficiency. ‘sustainability as community’, defined interms of maintaining or reconstructing eco-There have been several attempts to in-

tegrate these various interpretations and nomically and socially viable rural systems.YunlongandSmit (1994)alsodistinguishedscales of agriculture. Spedding (1979) con-

ceived agricultural systems as a hierarchy three main perceptions of sustainability. Thefirst is the ecological definition of sus-of enterprises, farms, plantations, regional

and national agricultures. Conway (1985a) tainability, which focuses on biophysical pro-cesses and continued productivity ofdescribed agriculture as a hierarchy of agro-

ecosystems, each possessing properties functioningecosystems.Thesecondistheeco-nomic definition of sustainability, which iswhich distinguish one from the other. Some

conceptual models focus on the farm as the mainly concerned with the long-term main-tenance of the benefits of farming to agri-basic agricultural unit, which interacts with

the physical, economic and social en- cultural producers. The third is the socialdefinition,whichaddressesthecontinuedsat-vironments from local to global scales

(Bryant and Johnson, 1992). Others have isfaction of basic human needs for food andshelter, as well as security, equity, freedom,recognized the linkages among different

components and scales of agriculture to education, employment and recreation.The views of Douglass (1984) and Yunlongstudy the effects of shocks and stresses on the

system (Williams et al., 1988; Kulshreshtha and Smit (1994) reflect the diversity inunderstanding of sustainability as it relatesand Klein, 1989). However, most sus-

tainability research has adopted a particular to agriculture. Drawing on this under-standing, interpretations of sustainabilityscale and dimension of agriculture, resulting

in a myriad of definitions and methodologies follow four dominant paradigms. These areequity, both intergenerational and intra-for its assessment.generational (Smit and Smithers, 1993), foodsufficiency (Smit and Brklacich, 1989), en-Defining agricultural sustainabilityvironmental stewardship (Smit and Smith-ers, 1993) and socio-economic viabilityDouglass (1984) identified three different

views of sustainability. The first view was (Ikerd, 1990; Brklacich et al., 1991).Despite the diversity in conceptualizingcalled ‘sustainability as food sufficiency’,

which seeks to maximize food production agricultural sustainability, there is some


broad consistency among definitions. Defin- Sustainability as an approach toitions generally contain three important cri- agricultureteria (Pesek, 1994):

Conventional (modern) agriculture is char-acterized as capital intensive, large scale,• environmental quality and ecologicalhighly mechanised systems with mono-soundness;cultures of crops and extensive use of arti-• plant and animal productivity; and,ficial fertilizers and pesticides. Sustainable• socio-economic viability.agriculture ideologies arise as alternatives to

All three criteria must be met before sus- the conventional approach (Hill and MacRae,tainable agriculture is achieved. A system 1988). These include the use of on-farm ormust be ecologically sustainable or it cannot locally available resources, reduced use ofpersist over the long term, and thus cannot synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, increasedbe productive and profitable. Likewise, a sys- use of crop rotations and organic materialstem must be productive and profitable over as soil ameliorates, diversification of cropthe long term or it cannot be sustained eco- and animal species and reduced stockingnomically, no matter how ecologically sound rates (Hansen, 1996).it is (Altieri, 1987; Ikerd, 1990; Stenholm According to Hansen (1996), interpretingand Waggoner, 1990; SCA, 1991). sustainability as an approach to agriculture

has been useful for motivating change andhas provided a banner for agricultural re-Conceptual approaches toform movements. Also, research and pro-assessing agriculturalmotion of sustainability as a set of strategiessustainability has become an important part of policy mak-ing. However, interpreting sustainability asHansen (1996) reviewed the conceptual ap-an approach to agriculture is not alwaysproaches to agricultural sustainabilityuseful. Firstly, it is based on the presumedassessment. He sees two broad in-

terpretations. The first is a goal-prescribing benefits of listed practices but does not pro-concept, which interpretssustainability as an vide any quantitative analysis—just, for ex-ideological approach to agriculture. This con- ample, that using fewer chemicals is better.cept was developed in response to concerns Secondly, agriculture considered sustainableabout the impacts of agriculture on the en- in developed countries may be inappropriatevironment, with the underlying goal of mo- for use in developing countries. The thirdtivating alternative agricultural practices. problem is that a distorted view of con-The second is a system-describing concept, ventional agriculture may cause approaches,which interprets sustainability as the prop- which enhance sustainability, to be rejectederty of agriculture to either fulfil a diverse because of their similarity to conventionalset of goals or to continue through time. This agricultural practice (Hansen, 1996).concept relates to concerns about the impactsof global change on the viability of agri-culture. The conceptual approaches to agri-

Sustainability as a property of agriculturecultural sustainability assessment aretherefore:

As a property of agriculture, sustainabilityis interpreted as either the ability to satisfy• Sustainability as an approach to agri-a diverse set of goals or an ability to continueculturethrough time (Hansen, 1996). The goals of—sustainability as an alternative ideo-sustainable agriculture generally includelogymaintenance or enhancement of the natural—sustainability as a set of strategies.environment, provision of human food needs,• Sustainability as a property of agri-economic viability and social welfare. Thecultureadvantage of this approach is that it captures—sustainability as an ability to satisfythe multi-objective character of sus-goalstainability. Its main disadvantage is that the—sustainability as an ability to con-

tinue. goals to be satisfied are different in each


application depending on the definitions in one situation may not be in another. Gold-man (1995) states, for example, that theused.typical prescription for sustainable agri-Interpreting sustainability as ‘an abilityculture, and associated conceptions of agri-to continue’ is consistent with the literalcultural problems, clearly addressesinterpretation of the word sustainable. Itsmainstream agricultural practice in Westernpotential usefulness comes from suggestingindustrial nations, where extensive use ofcriteria for characterizing sustainability,mechanical, chemical, energy, and materialproviding a basis for identifying constraintsinputs is likely to generate numerous neg-and evaluating proposed approaches to itsative side effects. On the great majority ofimprovement (Hansen, 1996). Its main dis-African farms, however, there is little if anyadvantage is the lack of consistent criteriause of chemical inputs, fossil fuel energy, orwith which to assess the persistence of agri-irrigation. Therefore, most prescriptions ofcultural systems.sustainable agriculture are basically de-scriptions of agriculture in Africa and manyother developing countries (Goldman, 1995).Methodological approaches to

assessing agriculturalsustainability Multiple qualitative and quantitative

indicatorsDifferent approaches to agricultural sus-tainability assessment have developed in as- This approach to agricultural sustainabilitysociation with these different conceptual assessment is consistent with interpretingapproaches (Hansen, 1996). For example, sustainability as the ability to meet a diverseassessment by adherence to prescribed ap- set of goals where no single indicator exists.proaches is based on an interpretation of Here several system attributes believed tosustainability as an approach to agriculture. influence sustainability are identified andAssessment using multiple qualitative and measurable indicators identified for each. Aquantitative indicators is consistent with in- negative change in an individual indicatorterpreting sustainability as an ability to sat- suggests that the system is unsustainableisfy diverse goals. Sustainability as an ability (Torquebiau, 1992).to continue is assessed using time trends or Recognition of the need for quantificationresilience analysis. A brief outline of these has motivated efforts to combine indicatorsmethodologies follows. into integrated, quantitative measures. Lal

et al. (1990) propose a quantitative equationfor measuring sustainability as follows:

Adherence to prescribed approaches

S=f(P, E, D, C, Q, . . . . .)tThis approach to agricultural sustainabilityassessment is consistent with interpreting

where S=sustainabilitysustainable agriculture as the adoption ofP=agronomic productivityalternative agricultural practices. Here,E=total energy inputfarms are classified as sustainable if theyD=measure of soil degradationreduce chemical inputs relative to typicalC=carbon efflux from soil and thefarms, and include rotations, legumes, tillage

biomass into the atmosphereand cover crops for the management of fer-Q=water qualitytility, erosion and weeds (Dobbs et al., 1991).t=timeQuantitative indices of sustainability have

also been developed by assigning values toproduction practices based on their ‘inherent Another example is that of Stockle et al.sustainability’, then combining these into (1994) where sustainability is evaluated bya composite index evaluated for each farm assigning weights to system attributes, scor-(Taylor et al., 1993). ing the attributes based on specific con-

The limitation of these techniques is that straints, and then combining the weights andscores to produce a figure of merit (Figure 1).prescribed practices deemed as sustainable


Su

stai

nab

ilit

y tr

end

Low

High

Attributes

Is it profitable ?

Is it productive ?

Are soil quality standards being met ?

Are water quality standards being met ?

Are air quality standards being met ?

Is it energy efficient ?

Are fish and wildlife habitats maintained ?

Is quality of life maintained ?

Is it socially and culturally acceptable ?

Constraints

low net income; low yields; high input costs; no markets

lack of pest control; crops not adapted; lack of nutrients; lack of water;

unstable yields; poor crop quality

soil erosion; salinization; alkalization; compaction; biological deterioration;

organic matter decline; organic toxins

chemical run-off; chemical percolation; sedimentation

dust from wind erosion; odour

high external inputs;inefficient use of biological resources

sedimentation; chemical run-off; lack of cover

worker safety; food safety; community structure; rural development

aesthetics; off-site impacts; education of public

Figure 1. Evaluation diagram of farming system sustainability (Stockle et al., 1994).

Productivity indices can be considered as Time trendsanother form of integrated quantitative in-

Time trends are consistent with interpretingdicators. The Soil Potential Index (SPI) is ansustainability as an ability to continue. Hereexample of a productivity index (McCor-sustainability assessments are made inmack, 1986):terms of the direction and degree of meas-urable changes in system properties. A sys-

SPI=P−CM−CL tem is considered sustainable if there is nonegative trend in selected system properties.where P=performance (yield)Monteith (1990) proposed determining sus-CM=corrective measure indextainability from a contingency table of trends(removable limitations)in inputs and outputs (Table 2).CL=continuing limitation index

The analysis highlighted two major prob-(permanent limitations)lems in using production statistics to assessthe sustainability of agricultural systems.

The disadvantage of using multiple qual- First, using long-term statistics had the ad-itative and quantitative indicators is that vantage of establishing the mean values ofthey may not allow for diagnosing the causes long-term trends in yield with acceptablyof unsustainability, or for evaluating the ef- small errors (±10%). However, it is alsofects of proposed interventions. Diagnosis of important to establish trends over the recentsustainability is further limited by the need past—say five to 10 years. When analysisto decide in advance the relative importance was restricted to this shorter time span, theof different constraints to sustainability error in estimating yield trend was of the

order of±100%. Analysts are therefore faced(Hansen, 1996).


Table 2. Contingency table for inferring sustainability based on trends of system inputs andoutputs (Monteith, 1990)

Outputs Inputs

Decreasing Constant Increasing

Decreasing Indeterminate Unsustainable UnsustainableConstant Sustainable Sustainable UnsustainableIncreasing Sustainable Sustainable Indeterminate

with a dilemma: to assess sustainability onthe basis of recent trends that are very un-certain, or to rely on more precise long-termtrends which may have ceased to be relevantbecause of environmental and technologicalchange (Monteith, 1990).

The second problem is the indeterminatenature of sustainability when both outputand input are increased. Increases in inputcould be enough to conceal the impact ofincreasing yields on the environment. The

Yie

ld

Time

High sensitivity

Low sensitivity

High resilience

Minimum viableyield

Application of improvedpractice

possibility of a concealed loss of sus-Figure 2. Representation of the concepts oftainability in such circumstances is a prob-

resilience and sensitivity (Coughlan, 1995).lem (Monteith, 1990).Characterizing sustainability by time

trends is appealing because of its simplicity.The slope of the trend line provides a quan- a change in available nutrient concentration

following modification of that system bytitative index, but the assumption that fu-ture rates of system degradation can be people. Resilience was measured as the abil-

ity of a system to restore its capacity (output)approximated from past rates is often dif-ficult to defend. Unsustainability may ex- on application of improved management.

These concepts are illustrated in Figure 2press itself as either a gradual change or asudden collapse. Furthermore, the reasons where minimum viable yield has been set as

the threshold for sustainability. The mini-for unsustainability trends might be externalto the system such as population pressure, mum viable yield may be an economic ‘break-

even point’ for commercial cash cropping orresource demands, market structures andtechnology. Another weakness of time trend a minimum household food requirement for

subsistence farming (Coughlan, 1995).analysis is separating variability fromtrends, which is especially true for short- Agroecosystem analysis also analyses re-

silience and sensitivity and therefore fallsterm data sets (Hansen, 1996).into this category of sustainability assess-ment. Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) showthat by treating both as vectors, resilienceResilience and sensitivityand sensitivity can be used to classify thesustainability of agroecosystems (Figure 3).This method is consistent with interpreting

sustainability as an ability to continue. In Sustainability, productivity, stability, equi-tability and practicability are also measuresthis context, sustainability is defined as the

ability of a system to maintain its pro- commonly used in agroecosystem analysis(Conway, 1985a,b). Altieri (1989) goes fur-ductivity when subject to stress. Coughlan

(1995) used the concepts of resilience and ther, incorporating political issues and socio-economic aspects.sensitivity to classify the reaction of soils to

land use. Sensitivity was measured as the Resilience and sensitivity can be viewedas an aggregate system response to the de-degree to which the output of a land use

changed by natural processes, for example, terminants of sustainability. However, the


production, environmental degradation, eco-nomic processes and farmer decisions(Hansen, 1996).

Sustainability indicators

Sustainability indicators are the most pro-lific method of sustainability evaluationwithin the literature. They fit within ‘sus-tainability as a property of agriculture’ inconceptual approaches to sustainability

Res

ilie

nce

Sensitivity

Potentially verysustainable

HighLow

High

Marginalsustainability

Astute managementrequired to sustain

Basicallyunsustainable

Difficult Fragil

e

DelicateRobust

assessment and ‘multiple qualitative andFigure 3. Categories of potential sustainability of quantitative indicators’ in the method-agroecosystems (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987). ological approaches to sustainability assess-

ment. They are discussed further in thispaper since this is the direction in whichmany countries, Australia and Canada inparticular, are heading in sustainable agri-

inability to identify a single measure of re- culture research.silience and sensitivity leads to the same Indicators of agricultural sustainabilityproblems of interpretation faced when using can be perceived at several levels, dependinga diverse set of indicators. Measures of re- on the scale at which evaluations are madesilience and sensitivity also ignore the socio- (Table 3). Apart from different scales of ap-economic goals of humans within the system plication, indicators may also differ in the(Hansen, 1996). directness of measurement, and the time

scale of operation. For instance, the direct-ness of measurement may vary from a direct

System simulation measure such as soil loss, through a proxymeasure such as soil cover, to an indirect

Simulation is used in a number of ways to measure such as herbivore density. Sim-estimate agricultural system sustain- ilarly, the time scale of operation may varyability—to characterize the sustainability of from a leading indicator such as clearing ofcrop production in relation to soil dynamics steeplands, to a concurrent indicator such asfor example (Lerohl, 1991). Other studies inappropriate land management practices,have used crop simulation models to examine to a lagging indicator such as abandonmentthe relationship between production and en- of land (Coughlan, 1995).vironmental degradation (Singh and Thorn- The indicators used depends on whetherton, 1992). Yield prediction models have also it is the potential effects of land managementbeen developed for the purpose of estimating being assessed, which requires leading in-production potential. CROPWAT (FAO, dicators, or the past effects of land man-1988), WOFOST (Van Diepen et al., 1988), agement using lagging indicators. DirectQUEFTS (Janssen et al., 1989) and IBSNAT indicators can be used where data exist and(IBSNAT/SMSS, 1987) are some examples of proxy or indirect indicators must be usedthese. where data are scarce. The next three sec-

Simulation can be used to examine long tions review some of these indicators pro-term, future impacts of alternative in- posed for use in Australia.terventions in a manner that is not possiblewith observation or experimentation. How-ever, the value of simulation is limited by Biophysical indicatorsthe capabilities of simulation models, byavailability and reliability of input data, and On-site biophysical indicators. A wide range

of biophysical factors influence agriculturalby a lack of methods for interpreting sim-ulation results. So far, there has been little sustainability, which results in diverse lists

of land quality indicators. In Australia, theintegration of models of crop and animal


Table 3. Levels of sustainability assessment (FAO, 1989)

Levels of Typical characteristics of Typical determinantsassessment sustainability

Field Productive crops and animals; Soil and water management;conservation of soil and water; low biological control of pests; use oflevels of crop pests and animal organic manure; fertilizers,diseases pesticides, crop varieties and

animal breedsFarm Awareness by farmers; economic Access to knowledge, inputs and

and social needs satisfied; viable marketsproduction systems

Country Public awareness; sound Policies for agriculturaldevelopment of agroecological development; population pressure;potential; conservation of agricultural education, researchresources and extension

World Quality of natural environment; Control of pollution; climatichuman welfare and equity stability; terms of trade;mechanisms; international distributionagricultural research anddevelopment

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Re- would show increasing water use efficiency,nutrient replacement, maintenance of bio-source Management (SCARM) focused on

trends in land and water that affect long- diversity, and declining soil loss (SCARM,1993).term production, and have proposed land

capability and production potential for use in Farm management practices also directlyaffect the productive capacity of farms, anddefining attributes of land and water quality

affecting on-site agricultural sustainability. the use of preferred practices can supplementthe attributes used in the measurement of on-Agricultural land, which is inappropriately

farmed compared with its suitability, might site land and water quality (Table 4).be considered as an indicator for un-sustainability at the farm level, for example. Off-site biophysical indicators. The most fre-

quently cited off-site environmental impactsA comparison between potential and ac-tual production can also be used as an at- arising from both historical and present agri-

cultural activities include:tribute in an on-site biophysicalsustainability indicator. A simple model of • the alteration of landscape hydrologythe physical equilibrium on a farm can be

by clearance of deep rooted perennialshown as (SCARM, 1993):

vegetation;• rise in ground water through the ex-

Inputs↔Capacity to produce↔Exportscessive use of irrigation waters;

• siltation of rivers, dams and naturalwhere the physical inputs are transformed,

water bodies, and atmosphericthrough the capacity of the resource base to

pollution, through surface soil trans-produce, into exports from the system. All

portation by water and wind;inputs and outputs will affect the capacity • leaching of fertilizers and pesticides intoof the resource to produce; some negatively

ground waters and streams, and aerialand some positively.

pesticide pollution leading to humanCapacity to produce can be related to a

health problems, through inappropriatenumber of measurable attributes including

use of agricultural chemicals; and,water use efficiency, nutrient balance, bio- • loss of natural flora and fauna throughlogical resilience, soil loss and management

large-scale clearing of native habitats.practice inputs. While development of a gen-eralized relationship between these at- SCARM (1993) proposed changes in food

quality, landscape hydrology and native eco-tributes requires further research, farmingdistricts tending towards sustainability systems attributable to agricultural practice


Table 4. Farm management practices which affect land and water quality (after SCARM,1993)

Condition Less sustainable More sustainable

Soilsoil nutrients and rotations without legumes; improved rotations withbiological activity low fertilizer use; inadequate legumes and weed control;

drainage balanced fertilizer use;adequate drainage

soil structure many cultivations; bare minimum tillage; stubblefallows retention

soil acidification no lime; plants shallow- regular liming; use ofrooted; excess fertilizer use gypsum and deep-rooted

perennialssoil erosion overgrazing; excess low stocking rates; minimum

cultivation; poor property tillage; plant cover; stubbleplanning; soil exposure retention; contour banks;

strip croppingWater

waterlogging heavy traffic; over-cultivation; strategic re-vegetation; usepoor drainage of gypsum and less

cultivation; drainage plansurface water quality excessive irrigation; bare soil efficient water use; retention

surfaces; high pesticide and of ground cover; lowfertilizer use pesticides/toxins

as off-site environmental indicators of landowners and land managers in finance,farming practice and environmental stew-sustainability. The indicators focus on those

impacts that permanently damage other eco- ardship as a social indicator of sustainability.Managerial skill encompasses decision mak-systems, or which are technically or fin-

ancially difficult to repair. ing about the products grown, physical farmmanagement including operational planningand conservation, financial planning, andthe capacity to realize personal and societalEconomic indicatorsgoals.

Following McLagan (1980), SCARM iden-Table 5 lists a selection of measures andattributes of the economic environment. tified four categories of managerial com-

petency. The first is formal knowledge, whichProfitability is one of the primary indicatorsof agricultural sustainability, the issue being is the educational level of those employed in

farming compared to that of the rest of theto ensure that agriculture is profitable butnot at the expense of the environment, and community. The formal knowledge indicator

can be represented as the ratio of farmingto recognize that farm profitability might beincreased by preventing or repairing en- population to total regional population that

has achieved a full school education, plusvironmental degradation. SCARM (1993)suggested measurement of the change in the ratio of higher education training in the

farming sector relative to the total popu-long-term real net farm income (real valueof agricultural production minus real value lation.

The second category of managerial com-of farm costs) as an economic indicator ofsustainable agriculture. petence is the skills base, for example literacy

and numeracy, driving, welding, machineryoperation and computing. While farmingskills are taught in rural education in-Social indicatorsstitutions, many farmers have acquired skillthrough years of experience and there is aFactors of the social environment are out-

lined in Table 6. SCARM (1993) suggested danger of undervaluing this. Some skills suchas driving and chemical use require licensing,changes in the managerial skill of farmers,


Table 5. Factors of the economic environment that may influence agricultural sustainability (Smyth andDumanski, 1993)

Factor Measure or attribute

Resourcesland farm size; fragmentation; land tenurelabour family labour availability; hired labour availability; seasonality of labourcapital returns to capital; gearing ratio; options for surplus disposal and deficit

reductionknowledge literacy rates; education levels; access to extension type; usedraft power land/labour, capital/labour use ratios; returns to input useefficiency

Economicenvironment

production costs levels; seasonal and yearly variation; associated uncertaintyproduct prices levels; seasonal and yearly variation; associated uncertaintycredit availability, types and use; interest ratesmarkets infrastructure; access, distance to input and output marketspopulation level; rate of change; seasonal migration patterns

Attitudesobjectives objective function including profit or utility maximization, risk reduction,

planning horizon; time preferencesrisk aversion coefficients of absolute, relative, partial risk aversionexpectations yield and price expectations

Complex qualitiesincome household income; income per head; proportion of household income

from off-farm activities, net farm incomeprofitability gross margins/ha; net returns/haconsumption total consumption; proportion spent of foodpoverty indices percentage of total consumption expenditure on food

Table 6. Factors of the social environment that may influence agricultural sustainability (Smyth andDumanski, 1993)

Category of social factor Related characteristics to assess

Macro-social, economic and Overall commitment to social justice, equity, participation andpolitical democratic institutionsLegal, fiscal and regulatory Existence of appropriate incentive and control structuresframework; overall policy promoting sustainabilityenvironmentMeeting physical and strategic Existence of opportunities within and outside the resourceneeds utilization system, distribution of wealth within and between social

unitsRatio of resource availability to Existence of mechanisms to reduce pressure on land usepopulation’s overall needs systemsConflicts over resource use Extent of conflict and existence of accepted conflict resolution

mechanisms, social participation in decision makingAccess to resources and to Equity of land tenure system, extent of access to credit and otheroutputs of production resources, gender equityMeeting individual costs of Existence of transfer and compensatory mechanismssustainable behaviour throughsocial investmentLocal affordability of sustainable Labour requirements and material and other costs within thebehaviour capability of those affectedSecurity and the level of risk Risk reduction in the short and medium term, increase of

opportunities for smoothing out income streamsAttitude changes, knowledge, Investment in environmental education, communicationbeliefs, valuesWorking with socio-cultural grain Responsiveness to felt needs, local participation, compatibility to

local systems of knowledge, beliefs and values


and statistics on these could give a rough the monitoring of agricultural sustainability.estimate of the level of some operations Note that most of the indicators relate onlycarried out on farms (SCARM, 1993). to on-farm sustainability assessment, which

The third category of managerial com- is a limitation given the desirability of sus-petence is the attitudes of the land managers, tainability assessment at different scales.including ethics, codes of practice, and or-ganizational membership. Membershipwithin conservation groups or other com- Unsustainability indicatorsmunity land management groups, such asLandcare, provide statistics, which could be It has been suggested within the literatureused for detecting attitudinal shifts. Other that indicators of unsustainability may beindicators of management attitudes include used in place of indicators of sustainabilitypublic awareness of conservation, the pro- when evaluating agricultural systems. Thisportion of the community attending training is similar to land evaluation methods, whichcourses and the degree of promotion of con- identify limitations to land use. The logicservation practices by advisory services. A is that it is easier and quicker to identifyfurther suggestion is the proportion of farm- constraints to progress rather than identifyers using multiple sources of information all the factors that contribute to progress.such as advisory services and consultants Indicators of unsustainability are desirable(SCARM, 1993). for a number of reasons (Svendsen, 1990):

The last component of managerial com-petence is the planning capacity of farmers,

• they remove the need to define what isincluding farm planning, responses to risksustainable;and financial management. Farm planning

• they are normally already available andincludes the use of physical and financialmeasurable;plans, and an indicator might be the pro-

• from past experience, cause and effectportion of farmers with farm financial andare usually known; and,physical plans (SCARM, 1993).

• they are easily linked to resource man-Figure 4 summarizes the complete set ofindicators, which SCARM has proposed for agement practices.

Off-siteenvironmentalimpacts

Food chemicalcontaminationlevel

River turbidity Dust stormfrequency

Length ofcontactzones

Managerial skills Farmer educationlevel

Skills index Conservationattitude index

Farm planningcapacity

Land and waterquality

Water useefficiency

Nutrientbalance

Area ofnativevegetation

Degree ofvegetationfragmentation

Real net farmincome

Net farmincome

Productivity Terms oftrade

Area of landused foragriculture

Key indicators Major attributes

Figure 4. The relationship between proposed sustainability indicators and attributes of agriculturalsustainability (SCARM, 1993).


Table 7. Some indicators of unsustainability (Jodha, 1990)

Visibility of change Resource base Production flows Resourcemanagementpractices

Directly visible Increased landslides Prolonged negative Reduced fallows,and other forms of trends in yield; crop rotation,land degradation; increasing intercropping andfragmentation of production inputs diversifiedland; changed per production unit; managementbotanical lower per capita practices; increasingcomposition of availability of use of submarginalforests and agricultural products lands; increased usepastures; reduced of legal measures towater flows for control land use;irrigation high intensity of

input useChanges concealed Substitution of deep Introduction of Shifts in croppingby responses to rooted crops by externally supported patterns andmanagement shallow rooted public food and composition of

crops; shift to non- input distribution livestock; reducedlocal inputs systems; intensive diversity and

cropping on limited increasingareas monocultures

Development New systems Agriculturalinitiatives without linkages to measures directed

other diversified toward short-termactivities; generating results; primarilyexcessive product (as againstdependence on resource) centredoutside resources approaches tosuch as fertilizers agriculturaland pesticides development

Therefore, until the processes influencing (1994) have classified the frameworks cur-the sustainability of agricultural systems are rently available for reporting on en-sufficiently well understood, it may be more vironmental issues. These frameworkseffective to develop indicators which identify include those for environmental accountingthe presence of processes and practices such as social accounting and green ac-which, from past experience, are un- counting (Costanza, 1991), environmentalsustainable (Table 7). reporting such as the Pressure-State-

Response (PSR) model (OECD, 1993), andsustainability assessment.

Frameworks available for The International Framework for Eval-uating Sustainable Land Managementassessing the sustainability of land(FESLM) is the international standard sug-managementgested for agricultural sustainability assess-ment (Smyth and Dumanski, 1993). WithinFrameworks serve to organize the largethe FESLM, land management is assessedquantities of data used for developing sus-using five pillars or criteria. These are thetainability indicators, to improve the ac-maintenance or enhancement of productioncessibility of indicators, and to integrateand services (productivity), the reduction ofthem in a meaningful way. Frameworks canproduction risk (security), the protection ofalso link individual monitoring programs,the natural resources and the preventionidentify duplication and gaps, facilitate de-of soil and water degradation (protection),velopment of new indicators and increase theeconomic viability (viability), and social ac-use of this information for the development of

policies and programs. Dumanski and Pieri ceptability (acceptability). For each of these


a single crop). This has two main dis-advantages. Firstly, it reduces its usefulnessto planners who generally require in-formation at a number of scales (Brookfieldand Humphreys, 1995). Secondly, it restrictsthe inclusion of off-site factors in sus-tainability assessment, which may operateat a watershed or regional level. Smythand Dumanski (1993) acknowledge this by

Indi

cato

r

Time

Threshold

Period of sustainability

Diagnostic criteria

stating that some issues that do not relateFigure 5. Schematic representation of the use of directly to the characteristics of the in-diagnostic criteria, indicators and thresholds in the vestigated site, and therefore do not fit com-

FESLM. fortably within the FESLM, may beimportant in decision making on sus-tainability.

In order to be complementary with thepillars, evaluation factors, diagnostic cri-FAO Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO,teria, indicators and thresholds are used in1976), the FESLM places land uses into sus-sustainability assessment (Figure 5).tainability classes based on time. Smyth andLand uses are classified into sustainabilityDumanski (1993) argue that assessing a landclasses according to the period of sus-use as either sustainable or unsustainabletainability, i.e. the length of time expectedis not meaningful and that planners willto elapse before continued use of the landrequire more guidance than can be providedfor the defined purpose is unacceptableby a yes/no decision. This is true; however,(Table 8).placing time limits on land use has in theThe publication of the FESLM was im-past led to unsustainability. The best ex-portant in that it focused thought on theample of this in Australia relates to landpracticality of sustainability assessment.tenure, where term leases have led to over-However, the framework has some weak-exploitation of the resource base and a failurenesses including:to implement long-term land management

• a focus on on-site factors in sus- strategies. The essential difference betweentainability evaluation, term leases and perpetual leases are that

• the classification of sustainability the latter gives special value to the carryingwithin defined time frames, capacity of the land. When a term lease

• the lack of a multi-scaled approach to expires, compensation is paid only for im-sustainability assessment; and provements constructed on the property—

• its use as a tool for assessing the sus- the condition of the land itself is of notainability of existing land use systems. consequence. A perpetual lessee can be com-

pensated for having increased the carryingIn an attempt to reduce complexity, thecapacity of the land by being given futureFESLM concentrates on on-site sus-use of that land (Young, 1985). In additiontainability analysis over small areas withinto this, processes causing land degradationwhich biophysical, economic and social fac-

tors are almost uniform (a small field under can operate on much longer time scales than

Table 8. FESLM classification of sustainability (Smyth and Dumanski, 1993)

Class Confidence limits

Sustainable (1) Sustainable in the long term >25 years(2) Sustainable in the medium term 15–25 years(3) Sustainable in the short term 7–15 years

Unsustainable (4) Slightly unstable 5–7 years(5) Moderately unstable 2–5 years(6) Highly unstable <2 years


Permanent damageLoss of biodiversityLoss of habitatsHeavy metal contamination

Soil nutrientexhaustion

Surface soilacidity

Nutrients instreams

Waterlogging/salinity

Soil structural/organic matter decline

Chemical contamination

Subsurface soil acidity

Reduced species diversity

Enhanced greenhouse effect

Organochlorine contamination

Siltation in major water storages

Salinity

Loss of soil mass

5 10 100 1000

Years

Figure 6. Time scales for land degradation processes to take effect (Roberts, 1995).

those suggested in the FESLM. Land cleared and land management, would be more de-for agriculture 100 years ago may only now, sirable.for example, be suffering the effects ofsalinization (Figure 6).

In its current form, the FESLM focuses onevaluating the sustainability of existing land A framework for assessingmanagement and land uses. Smyth and Du-

the sustainability ofmanski (1993) state that the FESLM doesnot encompass planning or development, al- agriculture at the planningthough it can make important contributions stageto both. This is a limitation in that it isreactive rather than proactive and sig-

The sustainability philosophies and methodsnificant resource degradation may occur be-reviewed all shed light on the practice offore a land use is identified as unsustainable.sustainability assessment. Although there isAn evaluation system, which prevents the

implementation of unsustainable land uses wide variation, they agree on the broad scope


of sustainability and give criteria for eval- of this paper aims to provide a solution touating existing land use systems. A sig- this problem.nificant challenge arises in determiningwhat are sustainable agricultural uses priorto converting currently unused or less in-tensively used areas to new land uses. Ex- The frameworkamples of this include conversion of forestland to grazing or cultivation, intensification In developing this sustainability assessmentof existing land use by irrigation and framework, there were some important con-mechanization, structural reforms and pri- siderations:vatisation.

• Sustainability evaluation should assessThe conventional approach to agriculturalagricultural systems in terms of the bio-land use planning in Australia uses landphysical, economic and social spheres ofsuitability assessment (e.g. FAO, 1976; Dent,the environment.1991). While land suitability studies address

• A knowledge-based approach to sus-land productivity at the farm or local scaletainability analysis, using proxy meas-and address some biophysical impacts suchures where necessary, will be moreas soil erosion, none are comprehensive toolsdesirable than depending only on quan-to approach sustainability as discussed intitative techniques which are limited tothis paper. In particular they do not in-those areas where processes are wellcorporate many of the socio-economic vari-understood and quantifiable.ables at scales greater than the local scale

• Factors influencing agricultural sus-or consider possible off-site impacts causedtainability operate at different scales,by agricultural land use. Some reform orboth spatially and temporally, andextension of these approaches is clearlytherefore, a multiscaled approach isnecessary if they are to meet the needs ofnecessary.sustainability assessment.

• Identifying unsustainability, sus-An alternative approach to assessing sus-tainability weaknesses, or potentialtainability at the planning stage is en-threats to sustainability, is often easiervironmental impact assessment (EIA) and

its derivative, strategic environmental than identifying what will be sus-assessment (SEA). EIA is widely used as tainable and allows remedial action toa project level methodology for identifying, be targeted.predicting and evaluating the environmental

The framework proposed here aims to en-consequences of development proposals. EIAcompass the biophysical, economic and socialis very flexible, intended to incorporate aspheres of the environment, and is a multi-broad range of biophysical and socio-scaled approach, using proxy measureseconomic considerations (World Bank, 1992).where necessary to identify threats to sus-SEA emerged in recent years to extend thetainability within agricultural systems. Theconcept of EIA to apply to policies, programsoverall structure of the framework is shownand plans (Therivel, 1993; UNEP, 1995). Es-in Figure 7. The multiscaled and multi-sentially the core analysis in SEA is similardimensional structure of the framework isto EIA, but the target is not a project but arepresented in Figure 8.higher level proposal such as a plan. In-

creasingly, SEA is being applied to local andregional plans and development programs(HMSO, 1993; Wood, 1995).

Field scaleSo how do we apply the concepts of sus-tainability at the planning stage, before land

Agricultural land management begins at theuse change occurs? Is the best approach anfield or management unit scale, where sus-extension of land suitability assessment ortainability involves maintaining or en-would an improvement on EIA/SEA be morehancing the productivity of the landeffective? Either way, the method must in-resource base. At this scale, those factorsclude the necessary sustainability criteria.

The framework developed in the second half influencing agricultural sustainability are


balance, soil loss, pests and diseases, andfarm management inputs therefore becomeimportant.

Farm scale

The farm is the basic economic unit in thehierarchy of agricultural systems. A fieldmay be uneconomic, or its use unsustainable,while the farm remains economically viable.Conversely, fields on a farm may do wellagronomically, but do poorly economicallydue to low commodity prices or high pro-duction costs. In order to be socio-eco-nomically viable, the economic and socialneeds of the farmer must be met, and the

Land use description

WhatWhereWhenHow

Database

BiophysicalEconomic

Social

Knowledge base

RulesModels

Indicator system

FieldFarm

WatershedRegion/Nation

Threat identification

farmer must have access to appropriateFigure 7. Sustainability evaluation framework. knowledge for management purposes, pro-

duction inputs and commodity markets. Im-portant sustainability indicators at the farmscale therefore include profitability, eco-nomic uncertainty, input and market avail-ability, the skills and knowledge baseavailable to the farmer, the planning cap-acity of the farmer, and the incentives avail-able to manage land in a sustainable manner.These incentives may include best man-agement practice guidelines, off-farm incomeand access to credit, government assistanceand land tenure (Thampapillai and And-erson, 1994).

Watershed scale

The aggregate of farms and other land usesin an area forms an agricultural landscapeor watershed. Agriculture requires materialsand services from the environment, such asthe purification and recycling of air andwater. These functions are enhanced by adiversity of managed and unmanaged eco-systems interspersed throughout the land-

Field scale –agronomic indicators

Farm scale –microeconomic

indicators

Watershed scale –ecological indicators

Regional or national scale –macroeconomic

indicators

scape. At the watershed level, the cumulativeFigure 8. The hierarchical nature of agricultural effects of individual agronomic and economic

systems (after Lowrance et al., 1986). practices can become apparent. Such cumu-lative impacts affect ecological sus-tainability, which requires the maintenanceof the life support capacity of landscape unitspredominantly biophysical in nature and(Lowrance et al., 1986). Indicators that as-relate to sustained production. Indicators,

which reflect water use efficiency, nutrient sess the effect of land use patterns on natural


drainage, riparian vegetation, groundwater particular problems, to be linked with theand surface water quantity and quality, bio- relevant data, providing an integrated datadiversity, habitat connectivity, and other and knowledge base for use with sus-flora and fauna conservation needs become tainability indicators.important at this scale. The land use description provides the con-

text in which sustainability assessment willbe undertaken. It aims to provide importantinformation on the nature of the land usesunder investigation, particularly man-Regional scaleagement practices. A land use descriptioncontains land use objective and means in-At the regional, national and internationalformation and can be broken into What,scale, macroeconomic constraints, especiallyWhere, When and How components (Tableeconomic policy, determine the focus of na-9).tional economies, and eventually the ability

of a nation’s agricultural system to feed itspopulation (Lowrance et al., 1986). Here thefactors most likely to influence agriculturalsustainability are socio-economic and in- Threat identificationclude indicators that measure the technologyand resources available for food production The aim of threat identification is to identifyand environmental protection, the presence potential sources of unsustainability withinor absence of appropriate land use controls, agricultural systems. Its role is to highlightpopulation pressure, the contribution of agri- those dimensions or scales of an agriculturalculture to regional and national employment system that need attention, not to classifyand income, and the distribution of the costs land uses as sustainable or unsustainable.and benefits (direct and indirect) of agri- To identify threats using indicators, it iscultural production within society (spatially necessary to define thresholds and weights.and temporally). Thresholds are indicator levels beyond which

the system is thought to become un-sustainable. Weightings are the relativeimportance each indicator has to the overallsustainability of the system. Thresholds andIndicator groupsweightings may be qualitative, obtainedthrough quantitative experimentation orFigure 9 summarizes those indicator groupssimulation modelling, or obtained throughfor agricultural sustainability evaluation atconsensus or expert opinion. The latter isthe scales discussed above. Data availabilitymore conducive to knowledge-based systemsand the potential or actual environmentaland may be the most feasible where theproblems perceived to exist at the locationrelationship between sustainability and in-under investigation will determine the se-dicator levels is poorly understood (Chidleylection of specific indicators.et al., 1993; Shaw et al., 1994; Yizengaw andThe components that feed into the in-Verheye, 1995).dicator system are the database, the know-

A three-dimensional matrix as shown inledge base and the land use description. TheFigure 10 can represent the threat iden-database contains land resource as well astification process. The matrix works by high-socio-economic data. It cannot contain anlighting the scales at which land usesexhaustive set of data, rather a set of sig-represent a threat to sustainability. Fornificant data required to meet the in-example, production system I with landformation needs of the sustainability issuesmanagement III could be considered un-to be assessed. Collecting and organizingsustainable since sustainability indicatorsdata with respect to defined problems canshow threats at all scales. Production systemhelp reduce the collection of unnecessaryII with land management III could be con-data and provide a structured pathway forsidered sustainable since it satisfies sus-data analysis. It also allows knowledge, in

the form of rules and models associated with tainability indicators at all scales. However,


Social indicators Biophysical indicators

Economic indicators

Scale

Field

Skills baseInformation basePlanning capacityConservation attitudesConservation incentives

ProfitabilityInput availability

Market availabilityEconomic uncertaintityFar

m

Ecological factors predominate;Dominant paradigm = Environmentalstewardship

Natural drainageRiparian vegetation

Ground/surface water quantity/qualityBiodiversity and habitat connectivity

Flora and fauna conservation needs

Wat

ersh

ed

EmploymentSocial equityTechnology baseLand use controlPopulation pressure

Socio-economicfactors predominate; Dominant

paradigm = Food sufficiency

Economic policyRegional and national income

Region

/Nat

ion

Socio-economicfactors predominate; Dominant

paradigm = Socio-economic viability

Biophysical factors predominate;Dominant paradigm = Landproductivity

Nutrient balanceSoil loss potential

Water use efficiencyBiophysical land suitability

Pest and disease susceptibility

Figure 9. Sustainability indicator groups useful in agricultural sustainability assessment at four scales.

Table 9. Information contained in the land use description (after Smyth and Dumanski,1993)

Description Information containedcomponent

What Expected goods and services produced by the land useWhere Geographical location, landscape position, size and configuration of

land holding, land tenure, surrounding land use, etc.When Commencement and expected duration of land useHow Means of achieving land use objectives: capital intensity, labour,

power sources, technology employed, production systems employed,conservation measures employed, etc.

production system I with land management available would be an important con-sideration in deciding on the fate of the landII shows a threat to sustainability at the

farm scale. In this case, the remedial action use.


Produ

ction

syste

m

Watershed

Threat OK Threat

OK Threat OK

Threat OK Threat

Threat Threat

OK Threat OK

Threat OK

Threat OK Threat

OKThreat OK

OK Threat

Farm

Field

I

II

III OK

I II III

Land management

Threat

OK

Figure 10. Threat identification matrix (after Gallopin, 1994).

social factors operating at the field, farm,Conclusionwatershed, regional and national scales.Methodologies currently used in sus-

The need to ensure that agricultural de- tainability assessment are either uni-velopment is sustainable creates a sig- dimensional (limit assessment to thenificant challenge for land use planners. biophysical, economic or social dimensions),Agriculture, above all other sectors, must uniscaled, or assess the sustainability of cur-meet the challenge to ensure food and rent land use. Planners require ex ante,fibre supplies are secure, while providing multi-dimensional and multi-scaled as-a livelihood for farmers and farm com- sessments. Therefore, we propose a frame-munities. work for integrated sustainability

There is no doubt that progress can be assessment that encompasses these factorsmade in making agriculture more sus- and scales.tainable without waiting for finely tuned The framework can be applied to modifyprinciples, definitions and models. There is the currently used planning approaches,so much that can be done to arrest land either by revising the ‘suitability’ criteriadegradation by applying the knowledge and used in land evaluation, or by using theexperience we already have. Nevertheless, framework in a strategic environmentalimproved methodologies are necessary to assessment of land development plans onceguide practice. they are prepared. Either way, the frame-

From the literature this paper concludes work for agricultural sustainability assess-that agricultural sustainability assessment ment must be woven in to our decision-

making processes at the planning stage.encompasses biophysical, economic and


Coughlan, K. J. (1995). Assessing the Sus-Acknowledgements tainability of Cropping Systems in PacificlandCountries—Biophysical Indicators of Sus-tainability. Paper Prepared for IBSRAM An-The authors would like to sincerely thank Mrnual Meeting of Pacificland Network, JuneRobin Thwaites from the Department of Agri-19–26, 1995. Lae, Papua New Guinea.culture, The University of Queensland, and Mrs

Dent, D. (1991). Introductory review. In Land UseJenny Bellamy from CSIRO Tropical AgriculturePlanning Applications. Proceedings of the FAOfor their useful comments and suggestions on theExpert Consultation, 10–14 December, 1990.manuscript and for their much needed en-World Soil Resources Report No. 68, pp. 1–9.couragement in the preparation of this paper.Rome: FAO.

Dobbs, T. L., Becker, D. L. and Taylor, D. C.(1991). Sustainable agriculture policy analysis:South Dakota on-farm case studies. Journal ofFarming Systems Research and Extension 2,109–124.References Douglass, G. K. (1984). The meanings of agri-cultural sustainability. In Agricultural Sus-tainability in a Changing World Order (G. K.Altieri, M. A. (1987). Agroecology: The ScientificDouglass, Ed.), pp. 3–30. Boulder, Colorado:Basis of Alternative Agriculture. Boulder, Co-Westview Press.lorado: Westview Press.

Dumanski, J. and Pieri, C. (1994). Comparison ofAltieri, M. A. (1989). Agroecology: a new researchAvailable Frameworks for Development of Landand development paradigm for world agri-Quality Indicators. Paper presented at the Sec-culture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and En-ond International Workshop on Developmentvironment 27, 37–46.of Land Quality Indicators, 13–16 DecemberAnon (1990). Sustainable development. In Com-1994. Nairobi: ICRAF.mission of Inquiry into the Conservation, Man-

FAO (1976). A Framework for Land Evaluation.agement and Use of Fraser Island and the GreatFAO Soils Bulletin No. 32. Rome: FAO.Sandy Region. Final Discussion Paper. Volume

FAO (1988). Manual for CROPWAT, A Computer1: Background, pp. 281–297. Brisbane, Queens-Program for IBM-PC Compatibles. Rome: FAO.land: Government Printer.

FAO (1989). Sustainable Agricultural Production:Blaikie, P. and Brookfield, H. (1987). Land De-Implications for International Agricultural Re-gradation and Society. Methuen: London andsearch. Compiled by the Technical AdvisoryNew York.Committee of the CGIAR. FAO Research andBrklacich, M., Bryant, C. and Smit, B. (1991).Technical Paper No. 4. Rome: FAO.Review and appraisal of concept of sustainable

Gallopin, G. C. (1994). Agroecosystem Health:food production systems. Environmental Man-A Guiding Concept for Agricultural Research.agement 15, 1–14.Workshop on Agroecosystem Health. First Inter-Brookfield, H. and Humphreys, G. S. (1995). Eval-national Symposium on Ecosystem Health anduating Sustainable Land Management: Are WeMedicine, June 19, 1994. Ottawa, Canada.on the Right Track?. In Proceedings of the 15th

Goldman, A. (1995). Threats to sustainability inInternational Congress of Soil Science,African agriculture: searching for appropriatepp. 388–397. Acapulco, Mexico: ICSS.paradigms. Human Ecology 23, 291–334.Bryant, C. R. and Johnston, T. (1992). Farming

Hansen, J. W. (1996). Is agricultural sus-in the City’s Countryside. Toronto: Universitytainability a useful concept? Agricultural Sys-of Toronto Press.tems 50, 117–143.Chidley, T. R. E., Elgy, J. and Antoine, J. (1993).

Hill, S. B. and MacRae, R. J. (1988). DevelopingComputer Systems of Land Resources Ap-sustainable agriculture education in Canada.praisal for Agricultural Development. WorldAgriculture and Human Values 5, 92–95.Soil Resources Report No. 72. Rome: Land and

HMSO (1993). Environmental Evaluation of De-Water Development Division, FAO.velopment Plans. London: HMSO.Conway, G. R. (1985a). Agroecosystems analysis.

IBSNAT/SMSS (1987). Agrotechnology Transfer.Agricultural Administration 20, 31–55.Newsletter No. 6. Honolulu, HI: University ofConway, G. R. (1985b). Rapid Rural Appraisal andHawaii.Agroecosystem Analysis: A Case Study from

Ikerd, J. E. (1990). Agriculture’s search for sus-Northern Pakistan. Proceedings of the Inter-tainability and profitability. Journal of Soil andnational Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal.Water Conservation 45, 18–23.Khon Kaen, Thailand: Khon Kaen University.

Janssen, B. H., Guiking, F. C. T., Van der Eijk,Costanza, R. (1991). The ecological economics ofD., Smalling, E. M. A., Wolf, J. and Van Reuler,sustainability: investing in natural capital. InH. (1989). QUEFTS. Wageningen, Netherlands:Environmentally Sustainable Economic De-Winand Staring Center.velopment, Building on Brundtland. En-

Jodha, N. S. (1990). Sustainability of mountainvironment Working Paper No. 46 (R. Goodland,agriculture: some imperatives. EntwicklungH. Daly and S. El Serafy, Eds). Washington:

The World Bank. und Landlicher Raum 3/90, 16–19.


Kulshreshtha, A. N. and Klein, K. K. (1989). pp. 117–124. St Lucia, Queensland: CSIRO Di-vision of Tropical Crops and Pastures.Agricultural drought impact evaluation model:

a systems approach. Agricultural Systems 30, Singh, U. and Thornton, P. K. (1992). Using cropmodels for sustainability and environmental81–96.

Lal, R., Ghuman, B. and Dhearer, W. (1990). quality assessment. Outlook on Agriculture 21,209–218.Sustainability of Different Agricultural Pro-

duction Systems for a Rainforest Zone of South- Smit, B. and Brklacich, M. (1989). Sustainabledevelopment and the analysis of rural systems.ern Nigeria. 14th International Congress on

Soil Science, Volume VI, pp. 186–191. Kyoto, Journal of Rural Studies 5, 405–414.Smit, B. and Smithers, J. (1993). SustainableJapan.

Lerohl, M. L. (1991). The sustainability of selected agriculture: interpretations, analyses and pro-spects. Canadian Journal of Regional Scienceprairie crop rotations. Canadian Journal of

Agricultural Economics 39, 667–676. 16, 499–524.Smyth, A. J. and Dumanski, J. (1993). FESLM:Lowrance, R., Hendrix, P. F. and Odum, E. P.

(1986). A hierarchical approach to sustainable an international framework for evaluating sus-tainable land management. World Soil Re-agriculture. American Journal of Alternative

Agriculture 1, 169–173. sources Report No. 73. Rome: FAO.Spedding, C. R. W. (1979). An Introduction toMcCormack, E. (1986). Soil potential index (SPI).

In Proceedings of the International Workshop Agricultural Systems. Essex: Applied SciencePublishers.on Quantified Land Evaluation Procedures,

Publication No. 6 (K. J. Beek, P. A. Burrough Stenholm, C. W. and Waggoner, D. B. (1990). Low-input, sustainable agriculture: myth orand E. McCormack, Eds). Enschede, Neth-

erlands: ITC. method? Journal of Soil and Water Con-servation 45, 13–17.McLagan, P. A. (1980). Competency models.

Training and Development Journal 34, 22–26. Stockle, C. O., Papendick, R. I., Saxton, K. E.,Campbell, G. S. and van Evert, F. K. (1994). AMonteith, J. L. (1990). Can sustainability be

quantified? Indian Journal of Dryland Ag- framework for evaluating the sustainability ofagricultural production systems. Americanricultural Research and Development 5, 1–5.

OECD (1993). OECD Core Set of Indicators for Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9, 45–50.Svendsen, M. (1990). Sustainability in irrigatedEnvironmental Performance Reviews. A Syn-

thesis Report by the Group on the State of the agriculture. Entwicklung und LandlicherRaum 3/90, 12–15.Environment. Paris: OECD.

Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. B. Taylor, D. C., Mohammed, Z. A., Shamsudin, M.A., Mohayidin, M. G. and Chiew, E. F. C. (1993).(1989). Blueprint for a Green Economy. London:

Earthscan. Creating a farmer sustainability index: a Ma-laysian case study. American Journal of Al-Pearce, D., Turner, R. K., O’Riordan, T., Adger,

N., Atkinson, G., Brisson, I., Brown, K., Du- ternative Agriculture 8, 175–184.Thampapillai, D. J. and Anderson, J. R. (1994).bourg, R., Fankhauser, S., Jordan, A., Mad-

dison, D., Moran, D. and Powell, J. (1993). A review of the socio-economic analysis of soildegradation problems for developed and de-Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable De-

velopment. London: Earthscan. veloping countries. Review of Marketing andAgricultural Economics 62, 291–311.Pesek, J. (1994). Historical perspective. In Sus-

tainable Agriculture Systems (J. L. Hatfield and Therivel (1993). Strategic Environmental Assess-ment. London: Earthscan.D. L. Karlen, Eds), pp. 1–19. London: Lewis

Publishers. Torquebiau, E. (1992). Are tropical agroforestrygardens sustainable? Agriculture and HumanRoberts, B. (1995). The Quest for Sustainable

Agriculture and Land Use. Sydney, Australia: Values 9, 11–19.UNEP (1995). Environmental Impact AssessmentUNSW Press.

SCA (1991). Sustainable Agriculture. Report of Good Practice Guidelines. Nairobi: UNEP.Van Diepen, C. A., Rappalst, C., Wolf, J. andthe Working Group on Sustainable Agriculture.

SCA Technical Report Series No. 36. Australia: Van Keulen, H. (1988). CWFS Crop GrowthSimulation Model WOFOST. Wageningen,CSIRO.

SCARM (1993). Sustainable Agriculture: Track- Netherlands: Center for World Food Studies.WCED (1990). Our Common Future. Australianing the Indicators for Australia and New Zea-

land. Standing Committee on Agriculture and edition. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Williams, G. D. V., Fautley, A., Jones, K., Stewart,Resource Management Report No. 51. Aus-

tralia: Commonwealth of Australia. R. and Wheaton, E. (1988). Estimating effectsof climatic change on agriculture in Sas-Shaw, R., Cogle, L., Lait, R., Doherty, J., Stone,

J. and Brebber, L. (1994). The role of decision katchewan, Canada. In The Impact of ClimaticVariations on Agriculture, Volume 1, Assessmentsupport systems for ecologically sustainable

productivity in the sugar industry. In Research in Cool Temperate and Cold Regions (M. L.Parry et al., Eds). Dordrecht: Reidel Co.and Modelling Approaches to Assess Sugarcane

Production Opportunities and Constraints. Wood, C. (1995). Environmental Impact Assess-ment: A Comparative Evaluation. London:Workshop Proceeding, University of Queens-

land, St Lucia (M. J. Robertson, Ed.), Longmans.


World Bank (1992). EIA Sourcebook. Washington: Young, M. D. (1985). Pastoral land tenure optionsfor Australia. Australian Rangeland Journal 7,World Bank.

Yizengaw, T. and Verheye, W. (1995). Application 43–46.Yunlong, C. and Smit, B. (1994). Sustainabilityof computer captured knowledge in land evalu-

ation, using ALES in Central Ethiopia. Geode- in Agriculture: A General Review. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment 49, 299–307.rma 66, 297–311.

assessing the sustainability of agriculture at the ...221481/jem_ag_sustainability.pdf · journal...

Documents