general enquiries on this form should be made...

General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,Telephone No. 020 7238 1612E-mail: [email protected]

SID 5 Research Project Final Report

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code IF0131

2. Project title

Assessment of Reduction in Environmental Burdens through Targeted Measures compared with Whole Farm Approaches in Cropping and Livestock Systems

3. Contractororganisation(s)

Agriculture and Environment Research UnitScience and Technology Research InstituteUniversity of Hertfordshire

54. Total Defra project costs £ 132807(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................ 01/04/2007

end date................. 30 September 2009

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so...................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They

should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the

intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.This project originates from a strong and increasing focus both within government and the industry on reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture. In 2007 Defra commissioned the University of Hertfordshire to undertake a project that would explore how whole farm approaches might help deliver positive environmental outcomes, particularly with respect to Defra's policy goals. More specifically Defra wanted to gain a good insight into what whole farm approaches could be expected to deliver in terms of environmental outcomes, compared with more targeted approaches. At the same time as this project was being undertaken, Defra's Sustainable Farm Management Team began working on an initiative to improve the environmental performance of farming. As there was a considerable overlap between the objectives of this programme and the IF0131 project, IF0131 was adapted to help support this initiative by broadening the project scope to encompass socio-economic and animal welfare objectives and to cover a wider range of assurance schemes in more detail. The main objectives of the project were to:

undertake a comprehensive and critical state-of-the-art review of whole farm and targeted approaches to environmental management;

analyse the causal processes and mechanisms by which different approaches influence environmental outcomes;

critique existing management systems to identify their strengths and weaknesses; assess the relative performance of whole farm versus targeted approaches for achieving

environmental outcomes; and develop proposals for an environmental management system and create a prototype.

These objectives were achieved within five approaches. Firstly, a literature review including policy objectives and outcomes; whole farm and targeted initiatives; and scientific knowledge on the environmental, socio-economic and animal health and welfare impacts of agriculture. Secondly, an analysis of causal processes and mechanisms, using the knowledge base collated in the literature review to establish the linkages between activities, effects and outcomes. This information has been captured in an activity-effect-outcome (AEO) database. Thirdly, a critique of existing management systems was undertaken using the activity-effect-outcome database to assess the relative performance of a number of whole farm and targeted schemes and initiatives. The first part of the critique involved undertaking a content analysis of a number of UK and global assurance schemes. The second part was an outcome assessment for the assurance schemes included in the content analysis and a number of targeted initiatives including cross compliance, ELS and the Voluntary Initiative. Fourthly, the relative performance of whole farm versus targeted approaches was assessed using the results generated in approach 3. Whole farm and targeted systems have been examined to determine their potential benefit and burdens, in

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

terms of what they provide on their own and in combination, in order to determine the degree of overlap and/or where different schemes and initiatives provide a unique benefit or burden. Finally, an environmental management system was proposed and a prototype developed. This is based on the philosophy of utilising the work undertaken in the previous tasks, to build on existing systems where possible, and to develop a tool that is simple to use with minimal data input.

The main conclusion of the analysis of whole farm versus targeted initiatives is that although there are overlaps, targeted initiatives tend to address those issues that are not being addressed by whole farm approaches. This is not unexpected, given that the main whole farm approaches examined, i.e. assurance schemes, are market driven and the targeted initiatives are government driven and are thus attempting to address market failure.

Whether a truly whole farm system exists is debatable. LEAF Marque in combination with an assurance scheme comes close, but it is tied in with a market based scheme and as such becomes another list of conformance points, rather than a whole farm management system. Ideally, a true whole farm approach is one which addresses all activities on a farm, integrates decisions on those activities and addresses multiple objectives and outcomes. Some of the whole farm and targeted initiatives covered in this study could be considered as tools to aid management, such as the checklists of assurance schemes, but each operates in its own right with its own objectives. The environmental management system proposed within this study (known as OASys) aims to integrate with schemes and provide the holistic perspective that is needed for any business to evolve in a sustainable direction.

The OASys (Outcome from Agricultural Systems) tool has attempted to not 'reinvent the wheel' and to build upon existing systems and data. There is little room for additional audits in an industry that is already heavily burdened with record keeping and 'paperwork', be it for statutory or marketing purposes. OASys utilises the databases developed within this project (the AEO and schemes and initiatives databases) to provide a farm with an assessment of their relative strengths and weaknesses in relation to a broad range of environmental, socio-economic and animal health and welfare outcomes. A farm simply selects the enterprises, schemes and policies that are in place on the farm and this determines what activities are (or are not) being done. This results in a performance profile for the farm, which can then be interrogated to generate a list of activities that will help improve performance for one, more or all of the outcomes. This action plan is then supported with relevant help and guidance (drawn from the ADLib resource) to help users implement the suggested actions. Thus a cycle of continuous improvement is established (audit, assessment, action plan, implementation, audit, etc.).

To conclude, this has been a very holistic research project covering a broad range of issues. The broad perspective does mean some issues have not been covered in depth, and thus there are limitations on the findings. However, it is deemed that such an approach is necessary in order to gain a full grasp on understanding of sustainability within agricultural systems. Thus, it is hoped that the work undertaken provides a good foundation for developing our knowledge and understanding of integrated farming and the development of tools and systems to help the industry evolve in a more sustainable direction.

Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with

details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the scientific objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).

Contents

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Contents................................................................................................................................................................... 4List of Tables....................................................................................................................................................... 5List of Figures...................................................................................................................................................... 5Report Preparation.............................................................................................................................................. 6

1.0. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 71.1. Background.................................................................................................................................................. 71.2. Project objectives and context...................................................................................................................... 71.3. Overview of the approaches......................................................................................................................... 8

2.0. Literature review (Approach 1)..........................................................................................................................92.1. Policy objectives and outcomes................................................................................................................... 92.2. Whole farm and targeted initiatives............................................................................................................10

2.2.1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 102.2.2. Whole farm schemes and initiatives...................................................................................................102.2.3. Targeted schemes and initiatives.......................................................................................................11

2.3. Current scientific knowledge.......................................................................................................................143.0. Mechanisms by which different approaches influence different outcomes (Approach 2)................................15

3.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 153.2. Development of database structure and software......................................................................................15

3.2.1. The database..................................................................................................................................... 153.2.2. Database interrogation software.........................................................................................................163.2.3. Development of the scoring system...................................................................................................17

3.4. Population of the AEO database................................................................................................................194.0. Critique of existing management systems (Approach 3).................................................................................21

4.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 214.2. Methods...................................................................................................................................................... 214.3. Outcome assessment methodology...........................................................................................................224.4. Outcome assessment results..................................................................................................................... 23

4.4.1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 234.4.2. Performance against target outcomes / critique of systems...............................................................25

4.4.2.1. AFS Schemes............................................................................................................................ 254.4.2.2. AFS Equivalent Schemes...........................................................................................................264.4.2.3. Global Schemes......................................................................................................................... 264.4.2.4. Supplementary Schemes...........................................................................................................274.4.2.5. Organic...................................................................................................................................... 284.4.2.6. Cross Compliance...................................................................................................................... 294.4.2.7. Entry Level Stewardship............................................................................................................334.4.2.8. Voluntary Initiative...................................................................................................................... 33

4.4.3. Net benefits........................................................................................................................................ 335.0. Whole farm and targeted approaches (Approach 4)........................................................................................36

5.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 365.2. Analysis of whole farm versus targeted initiatives......................................................................................365.3. Conclusions................................................................................................................................................ 39

6.0. Development of proposals for an EMS (Approach 5)......................................................................................426.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 426.2. Key aspects taken into consideration for the proposed EMS.....................................................................436.3. Prototype EMS: OASys - Outcomes from Agricultural Systems.................................................................44

6.3.1. Overview............................................................................................................................................ 446.3.2. OASys Components and processes...................................................................................................45

6.3.2.1. Farm profile................................................................................................................................ 456.3.2.2. Assessment routine.................................................................................................................... 466.3.2.3. Assessment results.................................................................................................................... 466.3.2.4. Action plan................................................................................................................................. 476.3.2.5. ADLib Guidance......................................................................................................................... 49

6.3.3. Strengths and weaknesses of OASys................................................................................................507.0. Discussion....................................................................................................................................................... 51

7.1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 517.2. Strengths and weaknesses in the approach and limitations of the findings................................................51

7.2.1. Strengths............................................................................................................................................ 517.2.2. Weaknesses and limitations...............................................................................................................51

7.3. Activities, effects, outcomes, burdens and benefits....................................................................................527.4. Whole farm approaches and targeted initiatives.........................................................................................53

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

7.5. Integrated farming and environmental management..................................................................................537.6. To conclude................................................................................................................................................ 54

References............................................................................................................................................................. 55

Appendices............................................................................................................................................................ 57Appendix A. Desirable outcomes (separate document)....................................................................................57Appendix B. Bibliography (separate document)................................................................................................57Appendix C. Detailed outcome assessment results: Outcome groups (separate document)............................57Appendix D. Detailed outcome assessment results: Individual outcomes (separate document).......................57

List of TablesTable 2.1. Schemes: aims and target outcomes....................................................................................................10Table 2.2. Cross compliance GAECs and SMRs, aims and target outcomes........................................................12Table 3.1. AEO Components................................................................................................................................. 15Table 3.2. AEO Links............................................................................................................................................. 16Table 3.3. Extract from activity-outcome matrix.....................................................................................................17Table 3.4. Scores for activities that can lower emissions of ammonia from slurry spreading.................................19Table 3.5. Extract from activity-outcome matrix (scored).......................................................................................19Table 4.1. Relationship between the outcome groups and the content analysis policy criteria..............................21Table 4.2. Outcome assessment results overview. Individual schemes & initiatives: Outcome groups.................23Table 4.3. Outcome assessment results for GAEC 1 (full implementation SPR review actions)............................30Table 5.1. Whole farm and targeted initiatives.......................................................................................................36Table 5.2. Coverage of outcome groups by a combination of whole farm & targeted approaches.........................41Table 6.1. OASys Enterprise List........................................................................................................................... 45Table 6.2. OASys Policy List.................................................................................................................................. 45Table 6.3. OASys Scheme and Initiative List.........................................................................................................46Table 6.4. OASys performance assessment categories.........................................................................................47Table 6.5. Example OASys performance assessment results................................................................................47Table 6.6. Example list of activities to improve air quality......................................................................................47Table 6.7. Example list of activities to improve carbon sequestration, plus the potential benefit or burden on other outcomes................................................................................................................................................................ 48Table 6.8. Example list of activities to be avoided..................................................................................................49

List of FiguresFigure 3.1. Linkages between activities, effects and outcomes..............................................................................15Figure 3.2. Example top-down interrogation...........................................................................................................16Figure 3.3. Example scoring................................................................................................................................... 18Figure 4.1. Summary of outcome assessment results for AFS schemes...............................................................26Figure 4.2. Summary of outcome assessment results for GlobalGap....................................................................27Figure 4.3. Summary of outcome assessment results for AFS schemes...............................................................28Figure 4.4. Summary of outcome assessment results for AFS schemes plus LEAF Marque.................................28Figure 4.5. Summary of outcome assessment results for Organic Compendium...................................................29Figure 5.1. Comparison of the potential benefits of Assured Produce, LEAF Marque, Cross Compliance & ELS. 40Figure 5.2. Comparison of the potential benefitis of ABM, LEAF Marque, Cross Compliance & ELS....................40Figure 6.1. EMS Cycle of continuous improvement................................................................................................43Figure 6.2. Overview of OASys.............................................................................................................................. 44

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Report Preparation

Title Assessment of Reduction in Environmental Burdens through Targeted Measures compared with Whole Farm Approaches in Cropping and Livestock Systems

Status: Final DraftReporting to: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)Organisation: Agriculture and Environment Research Unit

Science and Technology Research InstituteUniversity of Hertfordshire

Reporting period May 2007 – September 2009Project conducted by: Dr K. A. Lewis, Dr J. Tzilivakis, Dr D. Warner and Dr A. GreenProject report written by: Dr J Tzilivakis & Dr K A LewisReport date: 30th October 2009Release authorisation:

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

1.0. Introduction1.1. BackgroundThis project originates from a strong and increasing focus both within government and the industry on reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture. Agricultural activities are diverse and multi-functional in terms of the goods and services they provide. The production of food, fibre, oils and biomass are only some of the functions of farming. It also provides a habitat for biodiversity, a buffer and filter for pollutants and aims to meet the demands of society in terms of desirable landscapes and minimal environmental impact. Agricultural activities consume and utilise materials and energy like any other production process, but this production is interwoven with a range of habitats, biodiversity and environmental media. The potential environmental effects are numerous and can have a range of direct and indirect impacts, both positive and negative. Therefore managing this complex environmental footprint within an economically viable and socially acceptable business is a difficult task for both farmers and policy makers with respect to running the farm business and implementing effective policies respectively.

In 2007 Defra commissioned the University of Hertfordshire to undertake a project that would explore how whole farm approaches might help deliver positive environmental outcomes, particularly with respect to Defra's policy goals, e.g. with respect to water quality, air quality, soil, waste management, climate change, energy, landscape and biodiversity. More specifically Defra wanted to gain a good insight into what whole farm approaches could be expected to deliver in terms of environmental outcomes, compared with more targeted approaches, i.e. prescriptive practices targeted at specific problem areas on the farm.

At the same time as this project was being undertaken, Defra's Sustainable Farm Management Team began working on an initiative to improve the environmental performance of farming as part of the Farming for the Future Programme. There is a considerable overlap between the objectives of this programme and the IF0131 project, consequently IF0131 was adapted to help support this initiative.

1.2. Project objectives and contextThis project is one of three Defra funded projects that relate to integrated farm management (IFM). These are:

IF0124: Development of an integrated management framework and approaches for livestock farming systems (IGER)

IF0127: Contribution of integrated crop management practices to Defra objectives (ADAS) IF0131: Assessment of reduction in environmental burdens through targeted measures compared with whole

farm approaches in cropping and livestock systems (University of Hertfordshire)

The IF0131 project started in May 2007 and was originally scheduled to be undertaken over 2 years. The main objectives of the project were to:

undertake a comprehensive and critical state-of-the-art review of whole farm and targeted approaches to environmental management;

analyse the causal processes and mechanisms by which different approaches influence environmental outcomes;

critique existing management systems to identify their strengths and weaknesses; assess the relative performance of whole farm versus targeted approaches for achieving environmental

outcomes; and develop proposals for an environmental management system and create a prototype system.

As described above, this project overlaps with work being undertaken by Defra's Sustainable Farm Management Team, so the work schedule and objectives were slightly amended to help support this work. For example, the second part of literature review (Tzilivakis et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2008) was brought forward in the project schedule in order to coincide with a Defra workshop in July 2007. Following on from this workshop, Defra examined the potential to develop a food and farming standard. To support this work, the relative contribution of a range of existing UK assurance schemes needed to be assessed against a range of criteria that relate to environmental and socio-economic objectives. This has been undertaken by expanding the work undertaken for the IF0131 project including broadening the project scope to encompass socio-economic and animal welfare objectives and to cover a wider range of assurance schemes in more detail.

In order to meet the requirements of the original remit of IF0131 and the additional needs of Defra's Sustainable Farm Management Team, the project was extended by 6 months (2.5 years duration in total).

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

1.3. Overview of the approachesThe original project plan for IF0131 consisted of five approaches. These are outlined below and the areas where they were expanded are highlighted.

1. Literature review. This had three parts: (i) policy objectives and outcomes; (ii) whole farm and targeted initiatives; and (iii) scientific knowledge on the environmental impacts of agriculture. This review was expanded to cover socio-economic (e.g. worker welfare and food safety) and animal health and welfare issues, in order to provide a more holistic view required for a sustainability perspective.

2. Analysis of causal processes and mechanisms. This involved using the knowledge base collated in the literature review to establish the linkages between activities, effects and outcomes. This was done by using top-down and bottom-up approaches, where by the effects and outcomes of different activities are mapped out (top-down) and tracing the causal effects and activities that contribute towards different end outcomes (bottom-up). The activities, effects, outcomes and linkages between them have been captured in a database (the activity-effect-outcome (AEO) database) in order to facilitate interrogation and support the following tasks. The AEO database was expanded to include activities and effects that contribute towards socio-economic and animal health and welfare outcomes.

3. Critique of existing management systems. This involved using the AEO database to assess the relative performance of a number of whole farm and targeted schemes and initiatives. Prior to full completion of the AEO database, and in order to meet the needs of Defra's Sustainable Farm Management Team, the first part of the critique involved undertaking a content analysis of a number of UK and global assurance schemes. This involved using expert judgement to assess the contribution of each standard (conformance point) within each scheme towards a number of key policy areas/objectives. This showed the level of coverage of particular issues and, perhaps more importantly, the areas not covered. Upon completion of the AEO database an outcome assessment was also undertaken for the assurance schemes included in the content analysis and a number of targeted initiatives including cross compliance, ELS and the Voluntary Initiative.

4. Relative performance of whole farm versus targeted approaches. The outcome assessment results generated in approach 3 have been analysed to identify the relative contribution that whole farm and targeted approaches make to a range of outcomes. Whole farm and targeted systems have been examined to determine their potential benefit and burdens, in terms of what they provide on their own and in combination, in order to determine the degree of overlap and/or where different schemes and initiatives provide a unique benefit or burden.

5. Development of a prototype environmental management system (EMS). The final task was to propose a concept for an EMS and develop a 'proof of concept' prototype. The approach taken was based on the philosophy of utilising the work undertaken in the previous tasks, not 'reinventing the wheel' (i.e. building on existing systems where possible), and developing a tool that is simple to use with minimal data input. The prototype tool developed is known as OASys (Outcomes from Agricultural Systems) and utilises the same method and databases developed for the outcome assessment in approach 3, within an EMS context and a cycle of continuous improvement. OASys helps identify a farms strengths and weaknesses with respect to a broad range of outcomes, identifies activities that will help improve their performance with respect to those outcomes and provides support and guidance (via ADLib) to help implement those activities as part of an action plan.

Each of the above approaches, results and findings are described in detail in Sections 2 to 6 below. This is followed by a discussion.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

2.0. Literature review (Approach 1)The main objective of the literature review was to generate information and knowledge to be used in approaches 2, 3 and 4. As such the review was divided into three parts:

1. Policy objectives and outcomes2. Whole farm and targeted initiatives3. Scientific knowledge

2.1. Policy objectives and outcomesWhen considering the potential impact of any initiative there is a need to establish the ultimate endpoints by which the impact is to be judged. In some instances these endpoints will be issues that society deems to be of importance and not necessarily what scientists would judge as the main issues for sustainability.

The original focus of the study was environment. However, the remit of the study was broadened to encompass more socio-economic and animal welfare issues, to support work being undertaken by Defra's Sustainable Farm Management Team working on an initiative to improve the environmental performance of farming as part of the Farming for the Future Programme. More specifically, this expansion included occupational health and welfare of farm workers, food safety and issues specifically relating to animal health and welfare. The main emphasis of the work was still on environmental outcomes, but the additional socio-economic and animal welfare issues provided for a more holistic perspective that is important for understanding sustainable farming and food.

A range of government policy and strategy documents relevant to Defra and other literature have been reviewed to identify a number of outcomes. This included the following documents:

Air Quality Strategy (Defra, 2007a; Defra, 2003b) Animal health and welfare strategy (Defra, 2007b; Defra, 2004b) Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC, 2006; FAWC, 1992; Webster, 1995) Defra's strategy (Defra, 2004a; Defra, 2003a) Other strategy documents on pesticides, biomass and persistent organic pollutants (Defra, 2007c; Defra,

2007d; Defra 2006b) Natural England Strategy (Natural England, 2006) Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategies (PEBLDS, 2005; PEBLDS, 2003) Sustainable Development Strategy (Defra 2005) Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food (Defra, 2006a; Defra, 2002) Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI, 2007) Social Accountability 8000 (SAI, 2001)

Additionally, two other related Defra projects being undertaken at the same time as IF0131 have also undertaken a similar task to identify environmental outcomes. The projects are:

IF0127, which aims to improve the understanding, promotion and adoption of integrated farming practices in cropping systems, being undertaken by ADAS and Warwick HRI

IF0124, which aims to quantify, where appropriate, the potential of IFM approaches to reduce the environmental impact of livestock farming, being undertaken by IGER

In particular a matrix has been developed for IF0127, which contains a number of environmental outcomes. Where applicable these outcomes have also been used in IF0131 in order to achieve some synergy between the projects.

The outcomes that have been identified are positive in their nature and are thus termed desirable. There are of course undesirable outcomes, but generally these are the inverse of those that are desirable.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

There are 64 desirable outcomes that have been identified (see Appendix A) and these have been grouped together into 18 groups:

Air quality Animal health and welfare Biodiversity Biosecurity Carbon sequestration Countryside access and recreation Economic Efficient use of resources Energy

Food safety Food security Greenhouse gas emissions Landscape and heritage Public safety Soil quality Waste and recycling Water quality Worker health, safety and welfare

2.2. Whole farm and targeted initiatives2.2.1. Introduction

Classifying different schemes and initiatives as either 'whole farm' or 'targeted' is not straightforward as the terms are ambiguous. Initiatives that could be considered to have a whole farm perspective may not cover 'all' the issues on a farm and initiatives that are targeted tend to impact on other 'non-target' issues. Therefore, in this instance, 'whole farm' will be used to refer to those schemes and initiatives that tackle a broad range of activities and issues on a farm, whilst 'targeted' schemes and initiatives will are those that aim to tackle a narrow range of activities or issues.

This categorisation will to some extent be informed by the analysis undertaken within this project, to reveal the range of outcomes influenced by the various schemes and initiatives.

2.2.2. Whole farm schemes and initiatives

The bulk of this part of the review is available in Tzilivakis et al. (2007) and Lewis et al. (2008). This focused on a range of schemes and initiatives that were related to integrated farm management and food assurance. Table 2.1 lists the schemes included and their aims and associated target outcomes.

Table 2.1. Schemes: aims and target outcomes

Scheme Aim Target outcomeAFS SchemesAssured Produce (AP, 2008a) AFS is promoted as an "independent mark of

quality" that guarantees that food comes from farms that meet "high standards of food safety and hygiene, animal welfare and environmental protection" (AFS, 2008a)

Food safety, Environment*

Assured Combinable Crops (ACCS, 2008)

" Food safety, Environment*

Assured British Meat (ABM, 2008a)

" Food safety, Animal health and welfare, Environment*

Assured Dairy Farms (ADF, 2008a)


Assured British Pigs (ABP, 2007)


Assured Chicken Production (ACP, 2007)


AFS Equivalent SchemesFarm Assured Welsh Livestock (QWFC, 2008)

The standards aim to ensure that "stock that enters the food chain are reared with due consideration for welfare and husbandry" (FAWL, 2008).

Animal health and welfare

Northern Ireland Farm Quality Beef and Lamb (LMC, 2003)

The scheme aims to ensure that "that the highest European production methods are used by farmers to ensure uncompromising food safety, high animal welfare and care for the environment" and guarantees "quality, safety and traceability". (NIFQA, November 2008).

Food safety, Animal health and welfare, Environment*

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Scheme Aim Target outcomeQuality Meat Scotland (QMS 2007a, 2007b, 2007c & 2007d)

The standards are "designed to reassure consumers that animal welfare is as important to the industry as it is to them" (QMS, 2008)

Animal health and welfare

Genesis Quality Assurance (Genesis, 2007a, 2007b & 2007c)

The standards cover "best practice methods of production, animal welfare, traceability, legislation, food safety and environmental issues" (Genesis, 2008)

Food safety, Animal health and welfare, Environment*

Global SchemesNature's Choice (Tesco, 2007 and Tesco, 2006)

Aim to ensure that its growers "use good agricultural practices, operate in an environmentally responsible way and with proper regard for the health and well being of their staff" (Tesco, 2008a)

Food safety, Environment*, Worker health, safety and welfare

GlobalGap (GlobalGap, 2007a to 2007i)

Aims to "reassure consumers about how food is produced on the farm by minimising detrimental environmental impacts of farming operations, reducing the use of chemical inputs and ensuring a responsible approach to worker health and safety as well as animal welfare" (GlobalGap, 2008).

Food safety, Animal health and welfare, Environment*, Worker health, safety and welfare

Supplementary SchemesLEAF Marque (LEAF, 2007) LEAF Farming "combines the best of modern

technology and natural processes minimises" and "risks to the environment are kept to a minimum, while environmental benefits are maximised" (LEAF, 2008)

Environment*

Conservation Grade (GCGP, 2007a & b)

To develop the concept of "farming for wildlife" with the intention of reversing the decline in farmland wildlife (BITC, 2008).

Biodiversity

Organic SchemesCompendium of UK Organic Standards (Defra, 2006c)

Principles include: Working with natural systems; encouragement of biological cycles involving micro-organisms, soil flora and fauna, plants and animals; maintenance or development of valuable existing landscape features and adequate habitats for wildlife; careful attention to animal welfare; avoidance of pollution; and consideration for the wider social and ecological impact of the farming system. (Defra, 2006c)

Animal health and welfare, Environment*, Worker health, safety and welfare

* Environment includes: Air quality, Biodiversity, Carbon sequestration, Efficient use of resources, Energy, Greenhouse gas emissions, Landscape and heritage, Soil quality, Waste and recycling, and Water quality

Note: The organic standards of the Soil Association, Organic Farmers & Growers and the Organic Food Federation were also examined as part of this project. However, after consultation with these schemes (in July 2008), they requested that only the Compendium of UK Organic Standards (Defra, 2006c) should be assessed so as to represent the baseline of organic farming.

2.2.3. Targeted schemes and initiatives

There are a range of different schemes and initiatives that could be considered as targeted approaches. Three have been selected for examination in this project, representing some of the key initiatives:

Cross Compliance Environmental Stewardship (Entry Level Stewardship) Voluntary Initiative

In the case of cross compliance, this is actually a suite of targeted initiatives that fall under the umbrella of cross compliance. When this is taken into account, the number of targeted initiatives examined is actually 37.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Cross compliance:

Cross compliance began in 2005 with the introduction of the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) - the principal agricultural subsidy scheme in the European Union (introduced by EC Council Regulation 1782/2003). In order receive payments under the SPS farmers must comply with a set of cross compliance standards. If a farm fails to comply with these standards, their SPS payments may be withheld of reduced.

The cross compliance standards are split into two groups:

Domestic legal requirements requiring you to keep your land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC)

Specific European legal requirements, known as Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs)

Table 2.2 lists the GAECs and SMRs, along with their aims (taken from Defra, 2009) and the corresponding target outcomes (from section 2.1).

Table 2.2. Cross compliance GAECs and SMRs, aims and target outcomes

Initiative Aim Target outcomeGAEC 1. Soil protection review

To maintain soil structure and organic matter, and to prevent erosion

Soil quality

GAEC 2. Post-harvest management of land

Reduce run-off and soil erosion Soil quality

GAEC 3. Waterlogged soil To maintain soil structure and prevent compaction Soil qualityGAEC 4. Crop residue burning restrictions

To maintain soil organic matter Soil quality

GAEC 5. Environmental Impact Assessment

To protect uncultivated land and semi-natural areas Biodiversity

GAEC 6. Sites of Special Scientific Interest

To protect, manage and maintain SSSIs Biodiversity

GAEC 7. Scheduled monuments

To preserve scheduled monuments Landscape and heritage

GAEC 8. Public rights of way

To keep public rights of way open and accessible Countryside access and recreation

GAEC 9. Overgrazing and unsuitable supplementary feeding

To protect important habitats that contain natural or semi-natural vegetation

Biodiversity

GAEC 10. Heather and grass burning

To maintain moorland and heathland landscapes and habitats

Biodiversity

GAEC 11. Control of weeds To control the spread of injurious and invasive weeds BiodiversityGAEC 12. Agricultural land which is not in agricultural production

To avoid encroachment of unwanted vegetation and to protect habitats

Biodiversity

GAEC 13. Stone walls To encourage the retention of stone walls Landscape and heritageGAEC 14. Protection of hedgerows and watercourses

To protect sensitive field boundaries and their associated habitats

Biodiversity

GAEC 15. Hedgerows To protect the habitat, particularly for nesting birds, as well as the landscape feature provided by hedgerows

Biodiversity, Landscape and heritage

GAEC 16. Felling of trees To protect trees because they are important habitat and landscape features


GAEC 17. Tree Preservation Orders

To protect trees because they are important habitat and landscape features


SMR 1. Wild birds To protect wild birds, their eggs and nests BiodiversitySMR 2. Groundwater To protect groundwater by controlling the discharge

or disposal of potentially harmful and polluting materials

Water quality

SMR 3. Sewage Sludge To ensure that there is no risk to human, animal or plant health and no harmful effects on soil

Food safety, Soil quality, Water quality

SMR 4. Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

To reduce the pollution of waters caused or induced by nitrates

Water quality

SMR 5. Habitats and species

To protect species of flora and fauna Biodiversity

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Initiative Aim Target outcomeSMR 6. Pig identification and registration

To reduce the risk of pig diseases spreading Animal health and welfare, Biosecurity

SMR 7. Cattle identification and registration

To maintain a system for the identification and registration of cattle to facilitate their traceability, in particular in the event of a disease outbreak

Animal health and welfare, Biosecurity

SMR 8. Sheep and goats identification

To maintain a system for the identification and registration of sheep and goats to facilitate their traceability, in particular in the event of a disease outbreak


SMR 9. Restrictions on the use of plant protection products

To ensure that plant protection products (PPPs) are used correctly and to minimise their risk to humans, animals and the environment

Biodiversity, Food safety, Water quality

SMR 10. Restrictions on the use of substances having hormonal or thyrostatic action and beta-agonist in farm animals

To prohibit the illegal use in stock farming of substances that have a hormonal or thyrostatic action and beta-agonists, and to prevent the residues that these substances leave in meat and other foodstuffs from entering the human or animal food chain

Food safety

SMR 11. Food and feed law

To ensure the safe production of food for human consumption and food or feed that is fed to food-producing animals

Food safety

SMR 12. Prevention and control of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

To minimise the risk posed to human and animal health by certain TSEs

Animal health and welfare, Biosecurity, Food safety

SMR 13, 14 and 15. Control of foot and mouth diseases and bluetongue

To control and eradicate foot-and-mouth disease, certain animal diseases and bluetongue


SMR 16. Welfare of calves To protect the welfare of calves Animal health and welfareSMR 17. Welfare of pigs To protect the welfare of pigs Animal health and welfareSMR 18. Animal welfare To protect the welfare of farmed animals Animal health and welfare

Environmental Stewardship:

Environmental Stewardship is an agri-environment scheme that provides funding to farmers and other land managers in England for environmental management on their land. It was launched in March 2005 following the 2002-2004 Agri-Environment Review (Defra, 2002b) and the recommendation of the Curry Commission (PCFFF, 2002) that a 'broad and shallow' agri-environment scheme should be developed to complement the previous narrowly focused approach of Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

The objectives of the scheme are:

Primary objectives: Wildlife conservation (biodiversity) Maintenance and enhancement of landscape quality and character, by helping to maintain important

features, such as traditional field boundaries Protection of the historic environment, including archaeological features and traditional farm buildings Promotion of public access and understanding of the countryside Natural resource protection - if ES is taken up across large areas of the countryside, it will help to improve

water quality and to reduce soil erosion and surface run-off Secondary objectives:

Genetic conservation Flood management

Natural England (2008)

Thus, using the outcomes listed in section 2.1 the following can be considered the target outcomes for environmental stewardship:

Biodiversity Landscape and heritage Countryside access and recreation Soil quality

Water quality Carbon sequestration Greenhouse gas emissions

It should be noted that a condition of joining Environmental Stewardship is that a farm must observe all the relevant cross compliance requirements, regardless of whether it is claiming under the SPS. So to some extent

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

the target outcomes of cross compliance also apply to Environmental Stewardship. However, in this analysis ELS is examined independently from, and in combination with, cross compliance so that the additional benefits ELS has to offer can be identified.

Environmental Stewardship is composed on Entry Level Stewardship, Organic Entry Level Stewardship and Higher Level Stewardship. It is beyond the resources of this project to examine all of these in detail, so Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) has been selected for analysis as it is the baseline scheme, is open to all farms and has the greatest uptake (Defra, 2008).

According to Natural England (2008), ELS is a 'whole-farm scheme'. However, 'whole-farm' in the context of ELS refers to the fact that details of the whole farm are submitted in the application. It does not relate to the range of activities covered or the outcomes influenced.

ELS operates on a points based system, where the farm has to achieve a target level of points by implementing a range of land management options, each of which has a set number of points associated with it. Thus, providing the farm reaches this points target on its eligible land, the farm will be guaranteed an agreement.

The points based system means that different farms will implement different options and thus no farm is likely to implement all the ELS options. Therefore, in this analysis although we have assessed ELS as a whole, we have also assessed some typical 'case study' farms where a limited number of ELS options have been implemented. Four case study farms have been selected based on a set of ELS fact sheets produced by the Cotswolds Conservation Board (CCB 2005a, b, c & d) for:

Arable and Sheep Farm Cattle and Sheep Farm Cereal Farm Dairy Farm

Voluntary Initiative:

The Voluntary Initiative (VI) began in 2001 when the Government accepted proposals put forward by the farming and crop protection industries to minimise the environmental impacts from the pesticides as an alternative to the imposition of a pesticides tax. The aim of the VI is to reduce the environmental impact of pesticides to the extent that the need for a tax to bring about this end is not needed. The objective for the VI has been to ensure that everyone is working to best practice especially to protect biodiversity and water quality. Thus, using the outcomes listed in section 2.1, the following can be considered the target outcomes for the VI:

Biodiversity Water quality

2.3. Current scientific knowledgeThe amount of scientific literature covering the environmental impacts of agriculture is vast. There are thousands of journal articles and hundreds of research reports and best practice guides, forming a broad knowledge base of information with variable levels of detail and quality. This knowledge is broadened further when we expand the subject to cover socio-economic, food safety and animal health and welfare issues.

Unlike the first two parts of the literature review above, the approach within this project to this part has not been to undertake a conventional literature review with respect to writing a review report or article. Indeed it would be a significant task to undertake such an approach, and thus it is beyond the time and resources of this project. Instead the scientific literature has been researched, reviewed and evaluated within the context of creating a bibliography (see Appendix B). This bibliography is not just a list of relevant literature, it has been structured and is contained within a database that describes relationships between agricultural activities, effects and processes and end outcomes. This database is described in detail in section 3. The bibliography also includes a range of agricultural best practice documents and guides in addition to scientific literature.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

3.0. Mechanisms by which different approaches influence different outcomes (Approach 2)3.1. IntroductionAttributing environmental impacts (positive and negative) to specific farming systems and/or activities is not an easy task. As Parry et al. (2006) have highlighted, a number of changes are likely to be occurring concurrently on most farms, so ascribing observed environmental effects to specific causes is not straightforward. However, identifying the relationships between causes (agricultural activities) and end impacts (environmental outcomes) is important in order to be able to identify systems and activities that are most or least effective at influencing environmental outcomes. Therefore this approach aims to tackle this issue with an analysis of the causal processes and mechanisms by which different approaches influence desirable outcomes.

This has been achieved by creating a database that links together activities, effects and outcomes – known as the activity-effect-outcome (AEO) database. Structuring knowledge in this way provides a flexible format for interrogating the information in either a top-down or bottom-up way, as shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1. Linkages between activities, effects and outcomes

The AEO database provides us with the ability to explore the potential outcomes of an activity or group of activities (top-down), or examine what activities contribute to a particular outcome (bottom-up). There is also scope to examine individual effects (intermediate processes) to see the activities contributing to an effect and the consequent outcomes this could lead to.

There were a number of different steps to developing this database:

1. Development of database structure and software to construct linkages between activities, effects and outcomes

2. Development of a scoring system to enable utilisation of the AEO database for evaluating different targeted and whole farm initiatives

3. Population of the database

Each of these steps is described in detail below.

3.2. Development of database structure and software3.2.1. The database

The database has been created using MS Access and the underlying concept is a relatively simple one. A table of 'components' (see Table 3.1 for examples) has been created, where each item has a unique ID number and is classified as an activity, effect or outcome. A second table of 'links' has been created, which stores the details of single links, i.e. where component 'A' links to (causes) component 'X'. The links table also stores details that characterises the link, e.g. positive or negative and the link score (described in detail in section 3.2.3).

Table 3.1. AEO Components

ID Component Name Type1 Decrease consumption of non-renewable energy sources Outcome34 Calibrate fertiliser spreader used on arable land Activity35 Accurate application of nutrients to arable crops Effect

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Table 3.2. AEO Links

Link ID ID1 ID2 Significance PosNeg1 34 35 2 +

Additionally, relevant evidence gathered during the literature review (see section 2.3 and Appendix B) is stored in the database with each link. Essentially the database acts as a repository for related scientific literature and best practice guides. For example the link between 'Calibrate fertiliser spreader used on grassland' and 'Accurate application of nutrients to grassland' has the following article associated with it as evidence:

Cuttle, S. P. and Scholefield, D. (1995) Management options to limit nitrate leaching from grassland, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 20(3-4), 299-312

This structure has enabled the development of software to interrogate the database in order to build activity-effect-outcome chains and an activity-outcome matrix (see section 3.2.2).

A web site has been developed to enable the visualisation of the contents of the database. This is available at:

http://www.herts.ac.uk/aeru/projects/burdens/database/

3.2.2. Database interrogation software

Software has been developed (using MS Visual Basic 6) to interrogate the AEO database. Upon selecting an activity (for example) the software retrieves all the links for that activity. It then examines all the linked components and then retrieves all the links for those components, and so on until it reaches end outcomes. This results in a complete top-down effect chain/tree. The process is the same should you wish to interrogate in a 'bottom-up' way, but in reverse starting from an outcome.

Figure 3.2. Example top-down interrogation(Note: Yellow shaded boxes = activities, green = effects, and pink = outcomes)

As can been seen in Figure 3.2, the top-down interrogation identifies all the end outcomes that an activity is related to. Thus, if a top-down interrogation is undertaken for every activity an activity-outcome matrix can be created. This matrix is a large table of 64 columns by 400-500 rows (for outcomes and activities respectively). Table 3.3 shows an extract from this matrix (the full matrix is too large to be presented here).

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59


Table 3.3. Extract from activity-outcome matrix

Activity

Improve leisure

access to natural environm

ent

Improve w

ater quality - biological

Improve surface

water quality

(chemical) - nutrients

Improved control and

eradication of animal

diseases

Improved road safety

Increase carbon sequestration

Accurate calculation of nutrient requirements of arable crops X

Accurate spreading of fertiliser on arable land XAdd acid to slurryApply fertilisers and manures under the growing canopy of the cropArable land is left with a rough surface following operations such as ploughing, discing or tine cultivation X X X X X X

Arable land is sown with a crop within 10 days of having been prepared as a seedbed X X X

Avoid the use of ammonium sulphate on alkaline soils (>pH 7)Avoid tramlines over winter X X XNotes: X = means there is a connection between the activity and the outcome (not necessarily a direct link and not necessarily

a positive link, i.e. it could be positive or negative) The full and most current matrix can be viewed on the web site: http://www.herts.ac.uk/aeru/projects/burdens/database/

The database interrogation software undertakes a full top-down interrogation for each activity and then stores the resulting activity-outcome matrix in a new database (which itself can then be interrogated). This is quite a sophisticated process and can take 20-30 minutes to be processed on an average computer.

3.2.3. Development of the scoring system

Understanding that a relationship exists between an activity and an outcome is useful, but it does not indicate the significance of the relationship. To do this, a way of scoring the relationship is required. As described above, when a link between 2 components is created it is scored and assigned positive or negative. Thus each causal link in the database is given a score between –10 and +10, where negative scores represent a negative relationship between 2 components and where 10 equals a highly significant, strong and well established relationship and 1 equals a weak and not well established relationship.

These relationship scores are then used in a 'novel' way to generate a scored activity-outcome impact matrix. A 'weak link' approach is taken for generating a score between each activity and each outcome. The scores along each effect chain are examined and the lowest score is selected to reflect the score for the overall relationship between an activity and an outcome. An alternative approach would be to average the scores along the chain, but this can hide weak links and thus does not reflect the true strength of the causal relationship. The weak link approach works well for highlighting strong chains. For example, where there are clear set of well established, well understood and significant processes between an activity and an outcome – each would obtain a high score so the overall score will be the lowest figure, i.e. a high figure as all the scores are high. An example of this scoring is shown in Figure 3.3.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59


Figure 3.3. Example scoring

Figure 3.3 only shows a sub-sample of the activity-effect-database, and shows a selection of relationships between some activities and effects. Although this is not a full causal chain between an activity and an end outcome it does illustrate how the scoring system works. Table 3.4 lists the activities in Figure 3.3 (shaded yellow) and then the scores for the relationships between each activity and the endpoint (an effect in this instance) of 'Lower emissions of ammonia from slurry spreading'.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Lower emissions of

ammonia from slurry spreading

Increase infiltration of slurry into the

soil

3

5Irrigate field with water after slurry

application

Use mechanical separation to

remove solids from slurry

5

Dilute slurry with water

5

Decrease surface area of slurry that has been applied

to land

9

10 Use injection to spread slurry

Rapid incorporation (ploughing) of FYM and slurry into the soil (within 6 hours

of application)

7

Use band spreader / trailing shoe to spread slurry

6

4

Keep ammonia in solution within

slurry

2

10

10 Decrease the pH of slurry

Increase the degree of contact between the slurry applied

and the soil

8

6

10

Increase the amount of

ammonium-N that is bound to soil

particles

Use injection to spread slurry

Rapid incorporation (ploughing) of FYM and slurry into the soil (within 6 hours

of application)

Add acid to slurry

Table 3.4. Scores for activities that can lower emissions of ammonia from slurry spreading

Activity Link scores Overall scoreIrrigate field with water after slurry application 3,5 3Use mechanical separation to remove solids from slurry 3,5 3Dilute slurry with water 3,5 3Use injection to spread slurry 9,10 9

4,10,8 46.6 (mean)

Rapid incorporation (ploughing) of FYM and slurry into the soil (within 6 hours of application)

9,7 74,10,6 4

5.5 (mean)Use band spreader / trailing shoe to spread slurry 9,6 6Add acid to slurry 2,10,10 2

In some instances a single activity may have multiple 'pathways' by which it can influence the endpoint. Where this happens the scores for the multiple pathways are averaged. The end result of the scoring process is an amended activity-outcome matrix, with a score between each activity and each outcome that can range from –10 to +10. Table 3.5 is a duplicate of Table 3.3 (in section 3.2.2) but now has scores to reflect the relative nature of the relationship between an activity and an outcome.

Table 3.5. Extract from activity-outcome matrix (scored)

Activity

Improve leisure

access to natural environm

ent

Improve w

ater quality - biological

Improve surface

water quality

(chemical) - nutrients

Improved control and

eradication of animal

diseases

Improved road safety

Increase carbon sequestration

Accurate calculation of nutrient requirements of arable crops 0 0 4.7 0 0 0

Accurate spreading of fertiliser on arable land 0 0 4 0 0 0Add acid to slurry 0 0 0 0 0 0Apply fertilisers and manures under the growing canopy of the crop 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arable land is left with a rough surface following operations such as ploughing, discing or tine cultivation -1 8 3.6 0 5 -3

Arable land is sown with a crop within 10 days of having been prepared as a seedbed 0 0 3 0 3 0

Avoid the use of ammonium sulphate on alkaline soils (>pH 7) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Avoid tramlines over winter 0 6.7 4.7 0 4.7 0Notes: The scores in the matrix shown in Table 3.5 do not reflect a quantified impact, such as GHG emissions or declines or

increases in biodiversity. The scores simply reflect the relative potential for a positive or negative contribution towards the desired outcome.

The full and most current matrix can be viewed on the web site: http://www.herts.ac.uk/aeru/projects/burdens/database/

3.4. Population of the AEO databasePopulating the AEO database is a huge task and is something that will probably be an ongoing task as scientific knowledge is continually growing. This process has been somewhat 'organic', as new outcomes, effects and activities are added and linked together it leads to new effect chains being identified, explored and constructed.

An important part of the construction is to avoid circular references (also known as feedback loops). For example, where activity A causes effect Z which causes effect K which also causes effect Z (shortened to A > Z > K > Z > K, etc.). Such circular references result in a failure to establish the full effect chain as the system gets stuck in a loop (Z > K > Z > K) while trying to resolve the chain.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59


The outcomes in the AEO database have been drawn from the review undertaken in approach 1. The activities have been drawn from a range of sources including best practice guides, production standards, scientific and research literature and the process of back-casting from the desired outcomes. The effects and processes between activities and outcomes have been drawn from scientific literature and expert knowledge. A full bibliography of all the sources of knowledge can be found in Appendix B.

Inevitably, there has been some simplification in order to capture such a broad range of information within the time and resources of this project. In some cases production standards have been distilled down to their key components and some of the physical, chemical and biological effects/processes have been simply defined, almost in a 'black-box' type of way. However, the information that has been captured provides a detailed and holistic overview of agricultural activities and the outcomes they contribute to.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

4.0. Critique of existing management systems (Approach 3)4.1. IntroductionThe objective of this approach was to examine existing management systems to identify their strengths and weaknesses. In this instance, management system refers to the range of whole farm and targeted initiatives identified in section 2.2.

It is beyond the resources of this project to undertake a fully detailed quantified impact assessment of each scheme and initiative, using techniques such as EIA, LCA or SEA. As such, a more qualitative approach has been taken to facilitate a more rapid assessment of each scheme and initiative.

4.2. MethodsTwo approaches have been employed to assess each scheme and initiative:

1. A content analysis2. A outcome assessment using the AEO database

The content analysis provides a rapid overview of the subject areas that the schemes and initiatives do and do not cover. The approach and results are described in detail in a previous report (Tzilivakis et al., 2009). However, in summary, within each scheme each individual conformance point was considered regarding its potential contribution towards each desired policy outcome and awarded a weighting between 0 (no contribution) and 5 (very high contribution). The weighting was chosen to reflect the contribution made towards an outcome and the 'directness' of the conformance point in addressing it. The scores awarded for all the conformance points were then summed thus providing an overview of the various policy issues covered or not covered.

In order to make the content assessment a rapid process, the policy criteria used in the assessment were simplified. Table 4.1 shows how the outcome groups have in some instances been combined into one policy criterion and in other instances the outcome was not covered (n/c) in the content analysis.

Table 4.1. Relationship between the outcome groups and the content analysis policy criteria

Outcome groups Policy criteria used in content analysisAir quality Air qualityAnimal health and welfare Animal health and welfareBiodiversity BiodiversityBiosecurity Animal health and welfareCarbon sequestration Climate change mitigationCountryside access and recreation n/cEconomic n/cEfficient use of resources Resource efficiency and management

Water efficiencyEnergy Resource efficiency and managementFood safety Food safetyFood security n/cGreenhouse gas emissions Climate change mitigationLandscape and heritage n/cPublic safety n/cSoil quality Soil protectionWaste and recycling Resource efficiency and managementWater quality Water qualityWorker health, safety and welfare Occupational health

However, the content analysis does not provide any assessment of the level of coverage of any particular issue. For example, many of the schemes will have a number of compliance points relating to water quality, but this does not tell us if all water quality issues are covered. It only tells us that, for example, 5 out of 30 of the compliance points in a scheme relate to water quality. These could all be related to one pollutant, such as nitrate, or they could cover a wider range of pollutants, but the content analysis does not reveal this.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

In order to assess the coverage of a particular issue the AEO database has been used to assess the potential of each scheme and initiative with respect to what it can offer in relation to the desired outcomes. How this is done is complicated by the fact that it is dependent on type of farm and what is or is not practised on the farm. The approach is described in detail below.

4.3. Outcome assessment methodologyAs described above, the content analysis only provides a rapid overview of the subject areas covered or not covered. It does not provide any assessment of the level of coverage of any particular issue. To overcome this shortcoming a second assessment has been undertaken utilising the activity-outcome matrix. This assessment has been called an outcome assessment.

This activity-outcome matrix can then be used to score different schemes and initiatives. If a scheme or initiative promotes an activity listed in the activity-outcome matrix then it is attributed with the associated score for each of the outcomes. For example, if a scheme encourages avoiding tramlines over winter, using Table 3.5 it scores 6.7 and 4.7 for improving the biological and chemical quality of water and 4.7 for improved road safety. In this instance this relates to the issue that avoiding tramlines will reduce run-off from fields, and thus the loss of pollutants in watercourses and soil on to roads.

The scores for each outcome can then be summed for the entire scheme or initiative. To make these scores meaningful they are expressed as a percentage of the maximum that can be scored for an outcome. This maximum can vary according to the type of farm. For example, if we were to examine the potential that Assured Produce has to contribute towards the 'reduction of methane emissions' on an arable farm, we would exclude all livestock production activities (listed in the activity-outcome matrix) when calculating the maximum score for that outcome. Thus the score is relative to the type of farm being assessed. Some farms may have a greater scope to contribute towards some outcomes than other farms. For example, a livestock farm may have more scope to reduce methane emissions than an arable farm. However, this is not reflected in the score achieved for a particular outcome. As the scores are relative to the type of farm, the farming enterprises used when undertaking the assessment are noted in the outcome assessment results, e.g. Arable+ACCS+LEAF or Horticulture+AP+LEAF.

It is possible to apply a weighting factor to the outcome scores, so that some outcomes are given more importance than others. However, in this assessment this has not been done due to the somewhat subjective nature of weighting the importance of different outcomes.

The scores for the 64 outcomes listed in Appendix A are then converted into scores for the 18 outcome groups (see section 2.1), to make them more 'digestible' and provide a better overview of the performance of different initiatives. A score for an outcome group is calculated using the average score for the individual outcomes within that group. An average is used (rather than summing) as some groups contain more outcomes than others, so averaging avoids skewing the scores. The average score is based on those outcomes that are relevant to the farming situation being assessed. For example, the outcome group for Food safety covers 5 outcomes (pathogens, pesticide residues, physical contaminants, toxic elements and veterinary product residues). If a farm does not have any livestock, then the average will be calculated excluding veterinary product residues, i.e. the total of the scores for all the outcomes within Food safety will be divided by 4 rather than 5. This process makes the results more relevant and meaningful to the particular selection of farm enterprises, schemes and initiatives being assessed.

Within the outcome assessment it is possible to assess combinations of schemes and initiatives. This was not possible in the content analysis as each scheme was examined individually, using different spreadsheets for different schemes. However, in the outcome assessment, all the activities are held in a common database and each scheme and initiative is associated with one or more of those activities. As such, when two or more schemes/initiatives are examined together, only one set of activities is retrieved from the database for assessment, i.e. any activities that are common to the schemes/initiatives selected are not duplicated, the combination of schemes/initiatives are treated as one. This overcomes the problem where there are overlaps between schemes/initiatives, and thus the combined benefit of two or more schemes/initiatives is not simply the sum of the two.

In order to undertake the outcome assessment, each scheme/initiative has been associated with a normalised set of activities. The same activity may be worded differently in two or more schemes/initiatives, so a common wording/description has been used in the AEO database and then the relevant schemes/initiatives are associated with this activity. Inevitably this does involve some interpretation, but it has been a relatively straightforward normalisation exercise.

In relation to this, unlike the content analysis, not every assessment point or activity within a scheme or initiative has been assessed in the outcome assessment, only those that have been associated with the common set of

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

activities in the AEO database. For example, many schemes and initiatives require some record keeping. In some instances, there is a clearly defined link between the record keeping activity and an outcome, e.g. recording livestock movements for traceability, and thus biosecurity and food safety, and so these practices have been incorporated into the AEO database. However, in other instances the record keeping is simply for auditing purposes and it is difficult to associate record keeping with a defined effect and thus an end outcome, and thus such activities are not included in the AEO database.

The consequence of this process of associating schemes/initiatives with a normalised set of activities is that the list of activities associated with any scheme/initiative may appear to be substantially less than what is published in their own documentation. It is a process of distilling down to the essential components and activities that lead to the outcomes identified. As such it is considered that the key parts of the schemes/initiatives have been assessed.

Note: The outcome assessment only examines those activities in the assurance schemes that are considered to be critical failure points (or equivalent). In the content analysis both critical and non-critical conformance points were examined in order to review the range of activities being promoted by the schemes. However, due to the complexity of the outcome analysis, and the normalisation process described above, only those activities that must be done for scheme membership/certification have been included in the analysis (i.e. critical failure points and/or their equivalents).

4.4. Outcome assessment results4.4.1. Introduction

The outcome assessment results are presented in three levels of detail:

An overview of the results at the outcome group level (presented within this section). Detailed results at the outcome group level (presented in Appendix C). Detailed results at the individual outcome level (presented in Appendix D)

Table 4.2 shows an overview of the results for each individual scheme and initiative for each outcome group.

Table 4.2. Outcome assessment results overview. Individual schemes & initiatives: Outcome groups(yellow shading indicates target outcomes)

Scheme: Air

qual

ity

Ani

mal

hea

lth a

nd w

elfa

re

Bio

dive

rsity

Bio

secu

rity

Car

bon

sequ

estra

tion

Cou

ntry

side

acc

ess

and

recr

eatio

n

Eco

nom

ic

Effi

cien

t use

of r

esou

rces

Ene

rgy

Food

saf

ety

Food

sec

urity

Gre

enho

use

gas

emis

sion

s

Land

scap

e an

d he

ritag

e

Pub

lic s

afet

y

Soi

l qua

lity

Was

te a

nd re

cycl

ing

Wat

er q

ualit

y

Wor

ker h

ealth

, saf

ety

and

wel

fare

AFS SchemesACCS 0 0 15 0 0 0 8 8 2 34 16 3 0 0 26 4 10 20AP 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 23 4 58 17 4 0 0 31 16 14 40ABM 0 94 0 41 0 0 16 6 2 59 0 2 0 0 26 4 3 10ADF 0 92 4 76 0 0 18 0 -2 53 2 6 2 8 32 0 16 11ABP 0 88 0 78 0 0 31 -2 -2 82 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 8ACP 12 74 0 80 0 0 29 -2 -2 83 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 41AFS Equivalent SchemesFAWL 0 94 0 48 0 0 16 -1 -2 59 0 -1 0 0 26 0 2 6NI: beef/lamb 0 88 0 41 0 0 13 6 2 59 0 2 0 0 14 4 3 6QMS: cattle/sheep 0 83 0 24 0 0 13 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 6Genesis: beef/sheep 0 94 0 41 0 0 16 8 2 53 0 4 0 0 26 5 4 15

QMS: pigs 0 55 0 59 0 0 24 -2 -2 59 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 6

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Scheme: Air

qual

ity

Ani

mal

hea

lth a

nd w

elfa

re

Bio

dive

rsity

Bio

secu

rity

Car

bon

sequ

estra

tion

Cou

ntry

side

acc

ess

and

recr

eatio

n

Eco

nom

ic

Effi

cien

t use

of r

esou

rces

Ene

rgy

Food

saf

ety

Food

sec

urity

Gre

enho

use

gas

emis

sion

s

Land

scap

e an

d he

ritag

e

Pub

lic s

afet

y

Soi

l qua

lity

Was

te a

nd re

cycl

ing

Wat

er q

ualit

y

Wor

ker h

ealth

, saf

ety

and

wel

fare

Genesis: pigs 0 92 0 78 0 0 32 -2 -2 69 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 16Genesis: arable 0 0 14 0 0 0 8 13 4 35 16 6 0 0 26 8 11 20Global Schemes (GG = GlobalGap)GG: crops 0 0 12 0 6 0 4 25 5 11 7 7 2 5 5 12 8 56GG: fruit/veg 0 0 12 0 6 0 3 24 4 32 7 6 2 5 5 10 8 56GG: cattle/sheep 0 84 0 62 0 0 12 -1 -2 58 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 54GG: dairy 0 84 0 62 0 0 12 -1 -2 58 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 54GG: pigs 0 93 0 85 0 0 32 -2 -2 81 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 54GG: poultry 12 69 0 80 0 0 28 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54Nature's Choice 0 0 12 0 6 0 2 13 4 31 6 6 0 0 2 10 4 40Supplementary schemesLEAF 0 0 47 0 30 23 21 42 12 12 33 24 28 26 20 25 40 9Conservation grade 0 0 19 0 6 0 11 6 1 1 3 2 18 2 0 4 2 0

OrganicOrganic 11 59 25 37 4 0 9 28 6 61 20 2 1 3 52 18 31 0Cross compliance (G = GAEC, S = SMR)G1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0G2 0 0 1 0 1 -3 -2 0 0 0 0 -4 4 12 7 0 3 0G3 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 6 3 0 3 0G4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 -2 1 2 1 0 1 0G5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0G6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0G7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0G8 0 0 0 0 0 26 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0G9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 2 6 4 0 2 0G10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0G11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0G12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0G13 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0G14 0 0 12 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0G15 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0G16-17 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0S1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0S3 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 18 8 0 0 0 27 0 0 0S4 7 0 11 0 5 0 4 20 6 2 8 10 0 0 0 16 18 0S5 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S6-7-8 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S9 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 18 2 3 12 1 0 0 2 3 5 12S10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S12 0 2 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S13-14-15 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S16-17-18 0 45 0 23 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3All 7 51 53 48 18 23 34 40 8 47 31 19 39 26 44 19 35 16Entry Level Stewardship (ELS)

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Scheme: Air

qual

ity

Ani

mal

hea

lth a

nd w

elfa

re

Bio

dive

rsity

Bio

secu

rity

Car

bon

sequ

estra

tion

Cou

ntry

side

acc

ess

and

recr

eatio

n

Eco

nom

ic

Effi

cien

t use

of r

esou

rces

Ene

rgy

Food

saf

ety

Food

sec

urity

Gre

enho

use

gas

emis

sion

s

Land

scap

e an

d he

ritag

e

Pub

lic s

afet

y

Soi

l qua

lity

Was

te a

nd re

cycl

ing

Wat

er q

ualit

y

Wor

ker h

ealth

, saf

ety

and

wel

fare

Arable/Sheep 0 0 28 0 17 0 21 1 1 1 4 15 46 16 9 2 6 0Cattle/Sheep 0 0 36 0 27 0 22 2 2 0 6 16 47 24 17 5 7 0Cereal 0 0 23 0 9 0 16 0 0 1 3 14 38 9 4 0 3 0Dairy 0 0 35 0 27 0 17 2 2 0 6 16 39 24 17 5 8 0All ELS 0 0 30 0 22 -3 26 1 1 0 4 12 61 26 16 2 9 0Voluntary InitiativeVI 0 0 12 0 8 0 8 4 3 10 23 2 4 12 12 10 12 16

In some instances this is not an entirely realistic perspective, as some schemes require others to be undertaken as a prerequisite. Appendices C1.1 and C2.1 show the results for all possible combinations of a collection of schemes and initiatives. Finally, using the results in Appendix C1.1 and C2.1, Appendices C1.2 and C2.2 show the relative net benefits of each scheme and initiative in a range of situations where one or more other schemes are in place on a farm.

The results are examined in a number of ways:

What an individual scheme/initiative has to offer What a combination of schemes/initiatives has to offer What is the net benefit of a scheme/initiative when combined with one or more other schemes/initiatives

4.4.2. Performance against target outcomes / critique of systems4.4.2.1. AFS Schemes

The AFS schemes include target outcomes of food safety, animal health and welfare and the environment. The findings of the content analysis (Tzilivakis et al., 2009) are reflected in the results of the outcome assessment (Table 4.2), in that they both show that food safety and animal health and welfare are the main areas that the AFS schemes tackle. The outcome analysis also shows that with regard to the environmental outcomes coverage is patchy and generally low. This was also found to be the case in the content analysis, although there are differences in some of the more specific environmental outcomes. For example, the content analysis shows that ACCS, AP, ABM and ADF generally had more content on addressing water quality than soil quality. However, the outcome assessment shows that these schemes are probably tackling a greater proportion of soil quality issues than water quality issues. For example, out of 184 critical conformance points, Assured produce has 34 identified as related to water quality and 18 related to soil protection. However, the outcome assessment shows that AP scores 14 for water quality and 31 for soil quality. This is partly due to the greater number of water quality issues, and the actions that affect them. It may also be due to the schemes tackling some of the key soil protection issues.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Figure 4.1. Summary of outcome assessment results for AFS schemes

4.4.2.2. AFS Equivalent Schemes

The AFS equivalent schemes are, not unsurprisingly, similar to the AFS schemes.

FAWL's target outcome is animal health and welfare. The outcome assessment reflects the findings of the content analysis (Tzilivakis et al., 2009) and shows this is well covered, being one of the highest scoring schemes with respect to this outcome. There are also some corresponding benefits for biosecurity and food safety. Other than soil quality, there is little coverage with respect to environmental outcomes.

Northern Ireland Farm Quality Scheme for Beef and Lamb has target outcomes of animal health and welfare, food safety and environment. The outcome assessment reflects the findings of the content analysis (Tzilivakis et al., 2009) and shows that animal health and welfare is well covered, as is food safety to a lesser extent. However, there is little coverage of environmental outcomes.

Quality Meat Scotland's (QMS) target outcome is animal health and welfare. This is the main area this covers, but coverage is a lower than other livestock schemes, particularly for pigs. There are also some benefits to biosecurity and food safety, and the cattle and sheep scheme has some benefit for soil quality, but there is little coverage of other environmental outcomes.

Genesis Quality Assurance has target outcomes of animal health and welfare, food safety and environment. Genesis pigs reflects the findings of the content analysis (Tzilivakis et al., 2009) with respect to animal health and welfare and food safety being well covered. However, the content analysis indicated that environmental issues may be more generally covered compared to other similar schemes. This is not reflected in the outcome assessment, which strikingly shows no coverage of environmental outcomes. However, in the case of Genesis arable, the content analysis did show coverage of environmental issues and this is reflected in the outcome assessment to some extent. The coverage of food safety is lower for Genesis arable compared to the livestock scheme, but it is comparable to ACCS.

4.4.2.3. Global Schemes

GlobalGap has target outcomes of animal health and welfare, food safety, environment and worker health, safety and welfare. With regard to the two cropping modules in GlobalGap, they are both very similar in that they cover a number of different environmental outcomes, but none are covered to a large extent. With regard to food safety, the coverage is lower compared to the AFS schemes, particularly for combinable crops. However, worker health, safety and welfare are strongly covered compared to other schemes. This is probably due to the fact this is a global scheme so there is a need to establish common standards for worker health, safety and welfare when national laws on this issue can vary greatly from one country to another. The situation is different for the livestock GlobalGap modules. The main outcomes these address are animal health and welfare, biosecurity, food safety and worker health, safety and welfare. There is no coverage of any environmental outcomes.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Figure 4.2. Summary of outcome assessment results for GlobalGap

Nature's Choice has target outcomes of food safety, environment and worker health, safety and welfare. The outcome assessment shows that Nature's Choice is comparable to Genesis arable with respect to food safety and environment, with some coverage of a range of environmental outcomes, although there is less coverage of issues related to soil quality. Worker health, safety and welfare are also reasonably well covered, but to a lesser extent than GlobalGap.

4.4.2.4. Supplementary Schemes

LEAF Marque's target outcome is environment. The outcome assessment reflects the findings of the content analysis (Tzilivakis et al., 2009) in that a broad range of environmental outcomes are covered and to a greater degree than any other scheme. The only environmental outcome that is not covered is air quality.

One of the requirements of LEAF Marque is that the farm needs to be a member of one of the AFS schemes or GlobalGap. As such the full benefit of LEAF Marque is actually the combination of LEAF Marque with one of these other schemes. This is not simply a case of adding the outcome assessment scores together as there is some overlap between schemes. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 (and Appendix C) show the outcome assessment results for the AFS schemes and then the schemes combined with LEAF Marque.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Figure 4.3. Summary of outcome assessment results for AFS schemes

Figure 4.4. Summary of outcome assessment results for AFS schemes plus LEAF Marque

Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show that LEAF Marque makes a clear contribution towards a broad range of environmental outcomes when combined with an AFS scheme. Appendix C shows the net benefit of LEAF Marque when combined with a range of different schemes and initiatives, AFS schemes, cross compliance, ELS and organic. This shows that even when all the other schemes are in place, LEAF still has benefits to offer, particularly for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, countryside access and recreation, landscape and heritage and water quality. Thus highlighting that LEAF contains some standards/activities not promoted by any of the other schemes and initiatives.

4.4.2.5. Organic

The organic compendium has target outcomes of animal health and welfare, environment and worker health, safety and welfare.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

The content analysis (Tzilivakis et al., 2009) indicated that the organic compendium (Defra, 2006c) tended to largely focus on animal welfare, with little content on environmental outcomes and almost nothing on worker health, safety and welfare and food safety. However, it was noted in the content analysis (Tzilivakis et al., 2009) that this was a bit misleading due some inherent benefits of organic farming that are not drawn out in the standards, such as the avoidance of using synthetic pesticides. This has been taken into account in the outcome assessment and thus the results are different. Firstly, reflecting the findings of the content analysis, there is strong coverage of animal health and welfare outcomes. Secondly, there is coverage of a broad range of environmental outcomes. Food safety is also more notably covered. Worker health, safety and welfare are absent, as was found to be the case in the content analysis.

Figure 4.5. Summary of outcome assessment results for Organic Compendium

4.4.2.6. Cross Compliance

As described previously, cross compliance consists of a suite of targeted initiatives, thus the results for the outcome assessment have been presented for each GAEC and SMR as well as cross compliance as a whole.

Title: GAEC 1. Soil Protection ReviewAim: To maintain soil structure and organic matter, and to prevent erosion.Result: There is only the requirement to undertake a soil protection review (SPR). Although this is good

practice and will help identify and manage soil issues, it is difficult to allocate defined actions to this GAEC. Thus no results are shown in Table 4.2 for GAEC 1. However, the SPR does contain a number of suggested activities that could be implemented to help reduce damage to the soil and erosion. If we assume that all these suggestions are implemented the following results (Table 4.3) are obtained for the outcome assessment for GAEC 1.

Table 4.3 shows that if all the suggestions in the SPR are implemented then GAEC 1 scores well on the target outcome of soil quality. There are also some significant benefits to other outcomes particularly carbon sequestration, GHG emissions, landscape and heritage, public safety and water quality. This highlights the key role that soil protection has in relation to many other outcomes.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Table 4.3. Outcome assessment results for GAEC 1 (full implementation SPR review actions)

Scheme: Air

qual

ity

Ani

mal

hea

lth a

nd w

elfa

re

Bio

dive

rsity

Bio

secu

rity

Car

bon

sequ

estra

tion

Cou

ntry

side

acc

ess

and

recr

eatio

n

Eco

nom

ic

Effi

cien

t use

of r

esou

rces

Ene

rgy

Food

saf

ety

Food

sec

urity

Gre

enho

use

gas

emis

sion

s

Land

scap

e an

d he

ritag

e

Pub

lic s

afet

y

Soi

l qua

lity

Was

te a

nd re

cycl

ing

Wat

er q

ualit

y

Wor

ker h

ealth

, saf

ety

and

wel

fare

G1 0 0 8 0 34 -3 1 2 0 1 10 16 18 59 30 0 24 0

Title: GAEC 2. Post-harvest management of landAim: To reduce run-off and erosion and thus has a target outcome of soil quality.Result: This is reflected in the outcome assessment and it also scores well on public safety, probably due

to the benefit that reduced soil erosion has with regard to reduced flooding.

Title: GAEC 3. Waterlogged soilAim: To maintain soil structure and prevent compaction and thus has a target outcome of soil quality.Result: There is a small benefit to soil quality, but also a number of small benefits to a broad range of

other environmental outcomes, notably carbon sequestration by helping to improve vegetative uptake of nutrients and thus increase above ground carbon storage.

Title: GAEC 4. Crop residue burning restrictionsAim: To maintain soil organic matter and thus has a target outcome of soil quality.Result: Not burning crop residues only has a small influence on soil quality, in relation to all the other

activities that can affect soil quality. There are however some small benefits for carbon sequestration due to increasing soil organic matter, but this can also increase nitrogen mineralisation, thus there is a corresponding small negative effect in terms of increasing emissions of nitrous oxide.

Title: GAEC 5. Environmental Impact AssessmentAim: To protect uncultivated land and semi-natural areas and thus it has a target outcome of

biodiversity.Result: This is a difficult GAEC to assess as essentially there is only one activity, in that no projects on

uncultivated land and semi-natural areas can be undertaken without permission. The effect of this is difficult to judge, other than it protects these valuable habitats – as such it is only one activity amongst many that can influence biodiversity, and thus only registers 0.3 for biodiversity in the outcome assessment (which becomes 0 when rounded to the nearest whole number). This particular GAEC could be regarded as more finely targeted. If we examine the results in more detail, this GAEC only scores 4 for 'Maintain and enhance biodiversity: Plants - improve habitat and management' (Appendix D20) and thus this becomes diluted when considered amongst the 20 outcomes that fall into the Biodiversity Outcome Group.

Title: GAEC 6. Sites of Special Scientific Interest - SSSIsAim: To protect, manage and maintain SSSIs and thus has a target outcome of biodiversity.Result: Similar to GAEC 5 this is difficult to assess. However, it potentially has an impact on a broader

range of biodiversity. Although GAEC 6 only scores 2 for biodiversity, the detailed results show that it scores 8 to 11 for the biodiversity outcomes of 'improve habitat and management' for aquatic species, birds, invertebrates, mammals and plants (see Appendices D8, D11, D14, D17 and D20). So again, GAEC 6 would appear to be more finely targeted.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Title: GAEC 7. Scheduled monumentsAim: To preserve scheduled monuments thus has a target outcome of landscape and heritage.Result: This GAEC places a number of restrictions and controls on what can and can't be done to

scheduled monuments. As such there are some strong links between these activities and the outcome of landscape and heritage, which is illustrated in the results which show the GAEC 7 is one of the more focused/targeted initiatives.

Title: GAEC 8. Public rights of wayAim: To keep public rights of way open and accessible and thus has a target outcome of countryside

access and recreation.Result: This also one of the more focused/targeted initiatives by ensuring that public footpaths are

maintained, enhanced and restored after any agricultural activity.

Title: GAEC 9. Overgrazing and unsuitable supplementary feedingAim: To protect important habitats that contain natural or semi-natural vegetation by avoiding

overgrazing and unsuitable supplementary feeding and thus it has a target outcome of biodiversity.

Result: Although this initiative does have a small benefit to biodiversity, it also has a small benefit to range of other environmental outcomes, principally through improving soil quality, run-off and erosion, by reducing livestock poaching.

Title: GAEC 10. Heather and grass burningAim: To maintain moorland and heathland landscapes and habitats thus it has a target outcome of

biodiversity.Result: There is a low contribution towards biodiversity, but this GAEC is very specific, dealing with

moorland habitats. The detailed results show that this GAEC scores 4, 1, 5 and 2 for 'Maintain and enhance biodiversity - improve habitat and management, for birds, invertebrates, mammals and plants respectively, indicating that it is finely targeted.

Title: GAEC 11. Control of weedsAim: To control the spread of injurious and invasive weeds thus it has a target outcome of biodiversity.Result: This initiative has minimal contribution towards biodiversity. This is probably due to it tackling a

very narrow part of a very broad range of issues under the umbrella of biodiversity. The detailed results show that this GAEC score 14 for 'Maintain and enhance biodiversity: Plants - reduce other impacts' (Appendix D20) and zero for the other outcomes that fall within the Biodiversity Outcome Group.

Title: GAEC 12. Agricultural land which is not in agricultural productionAim: To avoid encroachment of unwanted vegetation and to protect habitats thus it has a target

outcome of biodiversity.Result: Due to the complexity of this particular GAEC, i.e. it cross links to the other GAECs, caveats and

exceptions, it has not been possible to undertake an outcome assessment for this GAEC.

Title: GAEC 13. Stone wallsAim: To encourage the retention of stone walls thus it has a target outcome of landscape and heritage.Result: This GAEC does contribute towards the outcome of landscape and heritage. There are also some

indirect economic benefits in that stonewalls can be a key landscape characteristic that can draw in visitors to an area that are valuable to the rural economy.

Title: GAEC 14. Protection of hedgerows and watercoursesAim: To protect sensitive field boundaries and their associated habitats thus it has a target outcome of

biodiversity.Result: This GAEC does contribute towards the outcome of biodiversity, principally via creating buffer

zones between agricultural activities and habitats. This also contributes towards landscape and heritage by helping to protect and maintain hedgerows.

Title: GAEC 15. HedgerowsAim: To protect the habitat, particularly for nesting birds, as well as the landscape feature provided by

hedgerows thus it has target outcomes of biodiversity and landscape and heritageResult: This GAEC is contributing to both these outcomes.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Title: GAECs 16 and 17. Felling of trees and Tree Preservation OrdersAim: These have been combined as they have the common aim of protecting trees because they are

important habitat and landscape features and thus they have target outcomes of biodiversity and landscape and heritage.

Result: These GAECs do contribute towards the outcome of landscape and heritage, but their contribution to biodiversity appears to be low. This is because this GAEC is just a single activity, to ensure trees are not cut down without permission, which, although important, is only one activity amongst many others that contribute to towards the outcome of biodiversity. It only registers 0.3 for biodiversity (which becomes 0 when rounded to the nearest whole number). The detailed results show that these GAECs score 5 for 'Maintain and enhance biodiversity: Plants - improve habitat and management' (Appendix D20) and 6 for 'Maintain and improve living landscape' (Appendix D50), highlighting that these GAECs are more finely targeted.

Title: SMR 1. Wild birdsAim: To protect wild birds, their eggs and nests and thus it has a target outcome of biodiversity.Result: This SMR has some fairly direct activities in relation to biodiversity and the outcome assessment

shows this.

Title: SMR 2. GroundwaterAim: To protect groundwater by controlling the discharge or disposal of potentially harmful and polluting

materials and thus is has a target outcome of water quality.Result: The SMR is particularly focused on protecting groundwater and this is reflected the results.

Title: SMR 3. Sewage SludgeAim: To ensure that there is no risk to human, animal or plant health and no harmful effects on soil from

the use of sewage sludge and thus it has the target outcomes of food safety and soil quality.Result: The results show that this SMR has clear benefits for food safety and soil quality and some

smaller benefits for some other outcomes.

Title: SMR 4. Nitrate Vulnerable Zones - NVZsAim: To reduce the pollution of waters caused or induced by nitrates, thus it has the target outcome of

water quality.Result: This SMR clearly contributes towards the outcome of water quality, but also contributes to a range

of other outcomes in particular biodiversity, efficient use of resources, greenhouse gas emissions and waste and recycling. The controls put in place by SMR 4 to control nutrients have a number of other benefits indicating the importance of good nutrient management on farms. Additionally, the detailed results show that although SMR 4 scores 18 for water quality overall, it scores 53 and 34 for 'Improve groundwater quality (chemical) – nutrients' and 'Improve surface water quality (chemical) – nutrients' respectively (see Appendix D62), thus illustrating a clear focus on reducing nutrient, and more specifically nitrate, pollution.

Title: SMR 5. Habitats and speciesAim: To protect species of flora and fauna thus it has a target outcome of biodiversity.Result: This SMR has some fairly direct activities in relation to biodiversity and this is reflected in the

results.

Title: SMRs 6, 7 and 8. Identification and registration for Pigs, Cattle, Sheep and goatsAim: Common aims of improving livestock identification, traceability and reducing the risk of disease

and thus they have the target outcomes of animal health and welfare and biosecurity.Result: These SMRs only make a small contribution to animal health and welfare issues, but do contribute

to biosecurity and in so doing also contribute towards food safety.

Title: SMR 9. Restrictions on the use of plant protection productsAim: To ensure that plant protection products are used correctly and to minimise their risk to humans,

animals and the environment and thus has the target outcomes of biodiversity, food safety and water quality.

Result: This SMR is contributing towards these outcomes and also has benefits for a number of other outcomes, particularly efficient use of resources and worker health, safety and welfare.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Title: SMR 10. Restrictions on the use of substances having hormonal or thyrostatic action and beta-agonist in farm animals

Aim: To prohibit the illegal use in stock farming of substances that have a hormonal or thyrostatic action and beta-agonists, and to prevent the residues that these substances leave in meat and other foodstuffs from entering the human or animal food chain. Thus it has the target outcome of food safety.

Result: This SMR clearly contributes towards the outcome of food safety.

Title: SMR 11. Food and feed lawAim: To ensure the safe production of food for human consumption and food or feed that is fed to food-

producing animals and thus it has the target outcome of food safety.Result: This SMR clearly contributes towards the outcome of food safety.

Title: SMR 12. Prevention and control of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - TSEsAim: To minimise the risk posed to human and animal health by certain TSEs and thus it has the target

outcomes of animal health and welfare, biosecurity and food safety.Result: There is some contribution towards these outcomes, particularly biosecurity.

Title: SMRs 13, 14 and 15. Control of foot and mouth diseases and bluetongueAim: To control and eradicate foot-and-mouth disease, certain animal diseases and bluetongue and

thus they have the target outcome of animal health and welfare and biosecurity.Result: There is a clear contribution towards biosecurity and a small contribution to animal health and

welfare.

Title: SMRs 16, 17 and 18. Animal welfareAim: To protect the welfare of farmed animals and thus they have the target outcome of animal health

and welfare.Result: A very clear contribution to animal health and welfare, being the highest score of all the SMRs and

GAECs and there is also a clear contribution towards biosecurity due to the inherent link between these two outcomes.

4.4.2.7. Entry Level Stewardship

ELS has target outcomes of biodiversity, landscape and heritage, countryside access and recreation, soil quality, water quality, carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions. The outcome assessment shows that across the 4 case studies there is a clear contribution to biodiversity and landscape and heritage, and to a lesser extent carbon sequestration. There are also contributions to soil quality, water quality and greenhouse gas emissions. It should also be noted that a requirement of ELS is to comply with the requirements of cross compliance, so the benefits of ELS are likely to be greater. This aspect is explored in more detail below (section 4.4.3).

4.4.2.8. Voluntary Initiative

The Voluntary Initiative has target outcomes of biodiversity and water quality. The outcome assessment shows that contributions are being made to these two outcomes. However, there are also contributions towards a broad range of other outcomes, in particular carbon sequestration, food safety and security, soil quality, waste and recycling and worker health, safety and welfare. This highlights the broad potential effects of pesticide use on farms.

4.4.3. Net benefits

An important aspect to consider is that many schemes and initiatives do not exist on farms in isolation, i.e. many farms need to comply with two or more. As such it is important to understand which schemes are targeting what outcomes, where do they overlap and where does a scheme uniquely address an outcome(s).

In order to understand this, the net benefit of a scheme or activity needs to be calculated in the context of other schemes and initiatives. For example, if a farm is undertaking cross compliance, is a member of Assured Produce and LEAF Marque, what is the net benefit of LEAF Marque? To calculate this net benefit we calculate an outcome assessment score for a farm with all the selected schemes in place, e.g. AP, LEAF Marque and cross compliance. Then we calculate the score with one of the schemes removed, e.g. the score for just AP and cross compliance, and the difference between the scores is the net benefit of LEAF Marque.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Appendix C contains outcome assessment scores for all possible combinations of the following groups of schemes:

1. AFS schemes, LEAF Marque, ELS, Cross Compliance and Organic (for arable, horticulture, cattle and sheep, dairy, pigs and poultry scenarios) (Appendix C1)

2. ACCS, AP, LEAF Marque, ELS, Cross Compliance and VI (for arable and horticulture, scenarios) (Appendix C2)

This data is then used to generate a set of net benefit scores for each scheme by subtracting the relevant results from each other.

Title: Net benefit of the Assured Combinable Crops Scheme (ACCS)Tables: C1.2.1 and C2.2.1Result: When only ACCS is in place on an arable farm, there are clear benefits, particularly for food safety

and also for biodiversity, soil quality and water quality. However, if the farm is complying with cross compliance standards, the net benefit is much lower, particularly for biodiversity, water quality and also food safety (one of the target outcomes for ACCS).

Title: Net benefit of Assured Produce (AP)Tables: C1.2.2 and C2.2.2Result: When only AP is in place on a horticultural farm, there are obvious benefits, particularly for food

safety and worker health, safety and welfare, but also for efficient use of resources, soil quality, waste and recycling and water quality. When the farm complies with cross compliance requirements, the overall net benefit is lower, as would be expected, but there are still net benefits for food safety, waste and recycling and worker health, safety and welfare. Indeed, even if the farm is also organic, doing ELS and has LEAF Marque, AP still offers benefits for food safety and worker health, safety and welfare.

Title: Net benefit of Assured British Meat (ABM)Table: C1.2.3Result: When only ABM is in place on a cattle and sheep farm there are clear benefits, particularly for

animal health and welfare, biosecurity and food safety, but also for soil quality. When the farm complies with cross compliance requirements, the overall net benefit is lower, as would be expected, but there are still net benefits for animal health and welfare and food safety. If the farm is also organic, doing ELS and has LEAF Marque, ABM still offers benefits for animal health and welfare and food safety.

Title: Net benefit of Assured Dairy Farms (ADF)Table: C1.2.4Result: When only ADF is in place on a dairy farm there are net benefits, particularly for animal health and

welfare, biosecurity and food safety, and also for soil quality and water quality. When the farm complies with cross compliance requirements, the overall net benefit is lower, but there are still net benefits for animal health and welfare, biosecurity and food safety. If the farm is also organic, doing ELS and has LEAF Marque, ADF still offers benefits for animal health and welfare, biosecurity and food safety.

Title: Net benefit of Assured British Pigs (ABP)Table: C1.2.5Result: When only ABP is in place on a pig farm there are net benefits, particularly for animal health and

welfare, biosecurity and food safety. When the farm complies with cross compliance requirements, the overall net benefit is lower, but there are still net benefits for animal health and welfare, biosecurity and food safety. If the farm is also organic, doing ELS and has LEAF Marque, ABP still offers benefits for biosecurity and food safety, and to a lesser extent animal health and welfare.

Title: Net benefit of Assured Chicken Production (ACP)Table: C1.2.6Result: When only ACP is in place on a poultry farm there are net benefits, particularly for animal health

and welfare, biosecurity, food safety and worker health, safety and welfare. When the farm complies with cross compliance requirements, the overall net benefit is lower, as would be expected, but there are still net benefits for animal health and welfare, biosecurity, food safety and worker health, safety and welfare. If the farm is also organic, doing ELS and has LEAF Marque, ACP still offers benefits for animal health and welfare, biosecurity, food safety and worker health, safety and welfare.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Title: Net benefit of LEAF MarqueTables: C1.2.7.1 to C1.2.7.6Result: In all enterprises, on its own LEAF Marque has clear benefits across all the environmental

outcomes except for air quality. However, LEAF Marque can only be undertaken in conjunction with another assurance scheme, but even when we examine LEAF Marque in combination with an assurance scheme, it still has net benefits across the same environmental outcomes (being ranked 2nd or 3rd in the tables). When the farm complies with cross compliance requirements, the overall net benefit is lower, but there are still net benefits for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, countryside access and recreation, landscape and heritage, soil quality, waste and recycling and water quality. If the farm is also organic and doing ELS, LEAF Marque still offers benefits for carbon sequestration, countryside access and recreation and landscape and heritage and still some smaller benefits for a range of other environmental outcomes. Thus LEAF Marque goes beyond many other schemes and initiatives with regard to environmental outcomes.

Title: Net benefit of cross complianceTables: C1.2.8.1 to C1.2.8.6Result: Across all the enterprises, on its own, cross compliance has net benefits across all the outcomes.

With regard to arable and horticultural enterprises, there is some overlaps with LEAF Marque, ELS and organic, but even when all these initiatives are in place cross compliance still has net benefits for air quality, biodiversity, landscape and heritage and water quality. With regard to the livestock schemes, on its own cross compliance has net benefits for animal health and welfare. However, when an assurance scheme or organic or both are in place, the net benefit of cross compliance drops to a negligible level. A similar pattern exists for biosecurity and food safety, but to a lesser extent, so there are still benefits provided by cross compliance for these outcomes. This indicates that cross compliance is tackling areas that are perhaps not covered by assurance schemes, and vice versa. This illustrates the role of cross compliance in addressing market failure to address some outcomes.

Title: Net benefit of the Entry Level Scheme (ELS)Tables: C1.2.9.1 to C1.2.9.6Result: ELS options vary between farms so a different set of options have been used for arable/horticulture

(ELS cereal), cattle/sheep/pigs/poultry (ELS cattle/sheep) and dairy (ELS dairy). Additionally ELS requires that the cross compliance standards be met in addition to the ELS requirements. On its own ELS makes a net benefit towards biodiversity and landscape and heritage. However, that net benefit is lower when cross compliance is also in place as required. To some extent it could be argued that the ELS requirement to meet the cross compliance standards makes a bigger contribution to the outcome than ELS on its own. However, the requirements of cross compliance are 'broad brush' whereas ELS options can be tailored to the specific circumstances of the farm, so the full benefits of ELS may not be captured within this study. Additionally, the important aspect is the combined benefits of both ELS and cross compliance, as this is what is implemented on the ground.

Title: Net benefit of the organic standardsTables: C1.2.10.1 to C1.2.10.6Result: Across all the enterprises, on its own, organic has net benefits to a broad range of outcomes, in

particular air quality, animal health and welfare, biodiversity, biosecurity, efficient use of resources, food safety, soil quality, waste and recycling and water quality, with smaller contributions to carbon sequestration. There is little contribution to countryside access and recreation, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, landscape and heritage and worker health, safety and welfare. When all the other schemes are in place, organic still has a net benefit for air quality, biodiversity, efficient use of resources, soil quality, waste and recycling and water quality. In the case of livestock enterprises, organic offers little net benefit for animal health and welfare when an assurance scheme is in place, particularly for cattle and sheep.

Title: Net benefit of the Voluntary Initiative (VI)Tables: C2.2.6.1 and C2.2.6.2Result: On its own the VI has net benefits for a range of outcomes, in particular biodiversity, carbon

sequestration, food safety, soil quality, waste and recycling, water quality and worker health, safety and welfare. The net benefit of the VI is reduced when ACCS/AP and LEAF Marque are in place, probably because these schemes have adopted some of the VI within their standards as part of the industry wide initiative. When all the other schemes are in place there are still some small net benefits for carbon sequestration, soil quality and water quality.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

5.0. Whole farm and targeted approaches (Approach 4)5.1. IntroductionThe outcome assessment undertaken in Approach 3 has revealed the potential of different schemes and initiatives to contribute to a broad range of outcomes. One of the objectives of this project is to assess relative performance of whole farm versus targeted approaches for achieving environmental outcomes. Schemes and initiatives that could be considered to be whole farm and those which could be considered to be targeted were identified in section 2.2 and these are summarised in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Whole farm and targeted initiatives

Whole Farm Targeted AFS schemes AFS Equivalent schemes Global schemes Supplementary schemes Organic

Cross compliance Entry Level Stewardship Voluntary Initiative

In order to make a meaningful assessment of whole farm versus targeted approaches the detailed outcome assessment results (Appendix D) have been examined to see how different outcomes are addressed by whole farm approaches, targeted initiatives and combinations of approaches and initiatives. Section 5.2 provides a summary of this analysis broken down by outcome group.

5.2. Analysis of whole farm versus targeted initiativesAir quality: There is very little coverage of air quality by either whole farm or targeted approaches. The two poultry assurance schemes (ACP and GlobalGap) have some direct benefits and the organic

standards and cross compliance (via SMR 4) have some indirect benefits. The outcome assessment results also reveal how different issues have different significance on different

farms. The analysis of combined schemes (Appendix D3) shows that although individually ACP and cross compliance provide air quality benefits, in combination there is no extra benefit. However, AP does not provide any air quality benefits, but when combined with cross compliance is achieves a slightly better outcome score than ACP combined with cross compliance. This is because there are potentially more air quality issues on a poultry farm compared to a horticultural farm. This means that the benefits provided by cross compliance to a horticultural farm will cover a greater proportion of the air quality benefits for that farm compared to a poultry farm, as the latter has more air quality issues to address.

Animal health and welfare: Cross compliance is the only targeted initiative that provides benefit to animal health and welfare (via SMRs

16, 17 and 18). This benefit is lower than that provided by various assurance schemes. When assurance schemes are combined with cross compliance, the combined benefit is not much different to

that of the schemes on their own, indicating that the issues covered by cross compliance are also covered by the assurance schemes.

Biodiversity: Firstly, this is a complicated area, as illustrated by the number of individual outcomes within the biodiversity

outcome group. Generally, the assurance schemes provide indirect benefits via improved use of inputs such as nutrients and

pesticides. Targeted initiatives also do this to some extent, but they also bring more direct benefits with respect to improving habitats and the management of those habitats.

Some very specific issues are also tackled by some targeted initiatives, for example GAECs 5 and 6 for semi-natural vegetation and SSSIs, GAEC 10 for heather and grass moorland and SMRs 1 and 5 for wild birds and plants.

The combination of both whole farm and targeted initiatives provides the greatest benefit to biodiversity (see Appendices D9, D12, D15, D18 and D21) by providing both direct and indirect benefits.

Biosecurity: All the assurance schemes provide significant biosecurity benefits. Cross compliance is the only targeted initiative that provides benefit for biosecurity (via SMRs 6-8, 12, 13-15,

and 16-18). There is a large overlap between the assurance schemes and cross compliance. However, when combined,

cross compliance still provides some additional benefits for biosecurity.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Carbon sequestration: Carbon sequestration is notably absent as a benefit from the main assurance schemes. LEAF Marque is the only 'whole farm' scheme that provides some notable benefit (see Appendix D25). The main targeted initiative that contributes to carbon sequestration is ELS, due to soil management and

habitat creation activities within the ELS options (see Appendix D26). The combination of LEAF Marque with an existing assurance scheme or ELS (or both) would boost carbon

sequestration potential, but it still only scores 30-35 (see Appendix D27), so there is still a lot of scope for improvement, both in terms of whole farm and targeted approaches.

Countryside access and recreation: Only LEAF Marque and cross compliance provide some benefit for countryside access and recreation (see

Appendix D28). Cross compliance (via GAEC 8) specifically targets public rights of way, so has a very direct benefit. The combination of LEAF Marque and cross compliance provides the greatest benefit (see Appendix D30) as

there is not much overlap between them.

Economic: A very mixed and complicated issue, possibly oversimplified within this study. However, whole farm systems do generally provide economic benefits, particularly in relation to economically

optimal production. Some of the targeted initiatives of cross compliance and ELS also have the potential for economic benefits, in

terms of payments under SFP and ELS, and also potential increases in rural employment for work that needs to be undertaken, e.g. maintaining hedgerows, stonewalls, etc.

Efficient use of resources: The assurance schemes tend to focus mostly on efficient use of nutrients and pesticides and there is a clear

split between the cropping and livestock schemes, with little coverage by the latter (see Appendix D34). Other than AP, there is no coverage of water efficiency in either whole farm or targeted approaches. LEAF Marque offers the greatest potential benefits for efficient use of resources. Cross compliance offers similar potential to LEAF Marque. However, those benefits are driven from a slightly

different perspective. LEAF Marque (and IFM generally) encourages efficient use of resources for both agronomic, economic and environmental reasons. However, efficient use under cross compliance is driven by SMRs 4 and 9, which relate to better use of nitrates and pesticides (largely for environmental purposes).

The combination of a crop assurance scheme and LEAF Marque or a crop assurance scheme and cross compliance offers greatest potential for efficient use of resources. Some additional benefit can also be obtained by combining crop assurance, LEAF and cross compliance.

Combining LEAF Marque and/or cross compliance with a livestock assurance scheme also provides benefits, but not for pig or poultry schemes. This is because of the strong focus on nutrients and pesticides, which are less of an issue within pig and poultry systems.

Energy: All the benefits relating to energy result from decreasing the consumption of non-renewable energy. No whole

farm or targeted initiatives offer any potential to increase the use of renewable energy. A significant proportion of the benefit arises from the efficient use of nutrients and thus the indirect energy

used in fertiliser production. LEAF Marque offers the most potential to reduce consumption of non-renewable energy. There is a similar pattern to 'efficient use of resources' (above), whereby there are some benefits provided by

the crop assurance schemes, but the potential benefits are quite low. Combining an assurance scheme (excluding pigs and poultry) with LEAF Marque and/or cross compliance

will improve the benefits for energy use. However, there is still significant scope for improvement.

Food safety: All the assurance schemes provide significant food safety benefits (see Appendix D40). Organic scores highly due to the prohibition of many substances covered by the 5 outcomes under food

safety (see Appendix D40). Cross compliance has a number of targeted initiatives that have specific benefits for food safety. These

include SMR 3 on toxic elements, SMRs 6-8, 10 and 11 on veterinary product residues and physical contaminants.

The combination of an assurance scheme and cross compliance boosts the food safety benefits and this is marginally increased with respect to pesticide residues if LEAF Marque is also added (see Appendix D42).

Food security: This outcome is largely connected to activities that will help maintain or increase production.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Those initiatives that encourage efficient use of nutrients and pesticides also result in benefits for food security, i.e. the crop assurance schemes, LEAF and cross compliance.

The combination of an assurance scheme and cross compliance boosts the food security benefits and this is further increased if LEAF Marque is also combined (see Appendix D45).

Greenhouse gas emissions: None of the assurance schemes provide any significant benefits for reducing GHG emissions, although those

schemes that improve the efficient use of nitrogen fertilisers also help to reduce nitrous oxide emissions. LEAF Marque offers some potential to reduce GHG emissions. Cross compliance also has the potential to contribute towards reducing GHG emissions, largely through soil

and nutrient management, but there are some trade-offs with respect to emissions of nitrous oxide. ELS also has some scope to aid the reduction of GHG emissions. The combination of a crop assurance scheme and LEAF Marque provides slightly more benefit than a crop

assurance scheme plus cross compliance. Additionally, if all three are combined the net benefit does not improve due to the trade-offs in nitrous oxide in cross compliance – this profile produces a greater reduction of carbon dioxide emissions but a lower reduction in nitrous oxide emissions.

The combination of a livestock assurance scheme (excluding pigs and poultry), plus LEAF and cross compliance results in the greatest benefit for reducing GHG emissions.

Landscape and heritage: None of the assurance schemes provide any significant benefits for landscape and heritage. The greatest benefits come from LEAF Marque, Conservation Grade, cross compliance and ELS (see

Appendices D49 and D50). GAEC 7 in cross compliance is very much targeted at protecting archaeological sites, as are some of the

options in ELS. Conservation Grade only tackles landscape issues indirectly via improvements to habitats for the purposes of biodiversity.

The combination of an assurance scheme, LEAF, ELS and cross compliance provides the greatest benefit.

Public safety: The outcomes within this group relate principally to reducing run-off and sediment loss, and consequent

flooding events and mud hazards on roads, and the management of trees and hedgerows adjacent to roads. Thus those schemes and initiatives that encompass these activities have an impact.

None of the assurance schemes provide any benefits. The soil management activities within cross compliance (GAECs 2-4 and 9), ELS and LEAF Marque make

clear contributions here.

Soil quality: The benefits of assurance schemes (excluding pigs and poultry) tend to be towards improving the chemical

status of the soil. LEAF Marque and cross compliance also have a benefit for the physical status of the soil. The different initiatives within cross compliance tend to have a benefit for either the chemical status of the soil

(via GAECs 2-4 and 9) or its physical status (SMR 3 and 9). ELS has benefits for the physical status of the soil only. The greatest benefit for the soil comes from a combination of LEAF Marque, cross compliance and ELS.

Waste and recycling: Generally waste and recycling is not covered to a large extent by any scheme or initiative. Out of the assurance schemes AP and Organic make some contributions. LEAF and cross compliance make a slightly higher contribution. The combination of some assurance schemes (such as AP) plus LEAF Marque and cross compliance results

in the greatest contribution, although there is still a lot of scope for improvement, particularly with respect to waste minimisation.

Water quality: A number of the assurance schemes (excluding pig and poultry) make contributions towards improving water

quality (see Appendix D61). The prohibition of synthetic pesticides in organic production results in a significant contribution with respect to

reducing pesticide pollution in surface and groundwaters. LEAF Marque offers potential to improve quality in both surface and groundwater, and for a range of

pollutants. Cross compliance offers significant potential to improve quality in both surface and groundwater and for a

range of pollutants via a number of different initiatives. The soil management initiatives (GAECs 2-4 and 9) have a small impact on a range of pollutants in both surface and groundwater. SMR 2 is targeted on pesticides in groundwater. SMR 4 has potential benefit for nutrients in both surface and groundwater. SMR 9 offers a potential benefit for reducing pesticides in surface and groundwater.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

ELS also has an impact on a range of pollutants in both surface and groundwaters to a slightly greater extent than the soil management options in cross compliance (see Appendix D62).

The combination of surface water, groundwater and different pollutants means that a combination of approaches is required to manage them and minimise any impacts. Consequently a combination of whole farm and targeted initiatives results in the greatest potential benefit, e.g. a combination of an assurance scheme, cross compliance and LEAF Marque (see Appendix D63).

Worker health, safety and welfare: All the assurance schemes provide some benefit, but it is mostly focused on reducing the incidence of ill-

health, injuries and fatalities amongst farm workers, rather than worker welfare. The global schemes offer most benefit (see Appendix D64) including some benefit for worker welfare. This is

probably due to their global nature, which means they need to ensure that health and safety standards are common in all countries, whereas the other assurance schemes are largely UK based, so UK health and safety legislation forms the standard.

Cross compliance offers some indirect benefit largely via the improved use of pesticides (SMR 9). The combination of assurance schemes and cross compliance does not produce much added benefit in some

cases (e.g. Assured Produce on its own offers the same benefit as when it is combined with cross compliance and LEAF - see Appendix D66). However, there is some benefit to the other schemes when they combined with LEAF Marque and/or cross compliance.

5.3. ConclusionsThe main conclusion of the analysis of whole farm versus targeted initiatives is that although there are overlaps, targeted initiatives tend to address those issues that are not being addressed by whole farm approaches. This is not unexpected, given that the main whole farm approaches examined (i.e. assurance schemes) are market driven and the targeted initiatives are government driven and are thus attempting to address market failure. It should be noted that this is not a failure of the assurance schemes, as they are only reflecting the market. The consequence is that when outcomes, or environmental impacts, are externalised by the market then the government needs to step in to internalise those costs in order to ensure that they are addressed. Hence, targeted initiatives are put in place to tackle these external costs either by providing incentives or penalties.

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 provide examples of the performance obtained for a farm undertaking Assured Produce and Assured British Meat respectively. This is then compared with a farm that does LEAF Marque, and a farm that only that does cross compliance and ELS and to a farm that does AP or ABM, plus LEAF Marque, plus cross compliance and ELS.

These charts show how, as expected, the assurance schemes provide most benefit on food safety and animal health and welfare, and cross compliance and ELS address more environmental outcomes, especially biodiversity, landscape and heritage and water quality. In many instances the combination of assurance schemes plus cross compliance plus ELS is resulting in a greater overall benefit, indicating that although there is some overlap between them there are also activities unique to each which are contributing towards the same outcomes. For example, AP plus LEAF scores well for biodiversity, cross compliance plus ELS scores higher and if they are all combined an even higher score is achieved. This indicates that some of the activities undertaken within AP and LEAF are not duplicated in cross compliance and ELS, and thus are providing additional benefit to biodiversity.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Figure 5.1. Comparison of the potential benefits of Assured Produce, LEAF Marque, Cross Compliance & ELS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Air quality

Biodiversity

Carbon sequestration

Countryside access and recreation

Economic

Efficient use of resources

Energy

Food safety

Food security

Greenhouse gas emissions

Landscape and heritage

Public safety

Soil quality

Waste and recycling

Water quality

Worker health, safety and w

elfareAP

AP+LEAF

XC+ELS

AP+LEAF+XC+ELS

Figure 5.2. Comparison of the potential benefitis of ABM, LEAF Marque, Cross Compliance & ELS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Air quality

Animal health and w

elfare

Biodiversity

Biosecurity

Carbon sequestration

Countryside access and recreation

Economic

Efficient use of resources

Energy

Food safety

Food security

Greenhouse gas emissions

Landscape and heritage

Public safety

Soil quality

Waste and recycling

Water quality

Worker health, safety and w

elfare

ABM

ABM+LEAF

XC+ELS

ABM+LEAF+XC+ELS

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 also show some of the areas that are not being addressed by either whole farm or targeted approaches. Table 5.2 lists the outcome groups in three groups in relation to the level of coverage when whole farm and targeted approaches are combined.

Table 5.2. Coverage of outcome groups by a combination of whole farm & targeted approaches

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Level of coverage Outcome groupLow Air quality

Carbon sequestration Energy Greenhouse gas emissions

Moderate Biosecurity Countryside access and recreation Economic Efficient use of resources Public safety Soil quality Waste and recycling Water quality Worker health, safety and welfare

High Animal health and welfare Biodiversity Food safety Landscape and heritage

More specifically, the following outcomes are not being addressed to any significant extent:

Decrease consumption of non-renewable energy sources Efficient use of resources – water Farm worker welfare is protected and improved Increase use of renewable energy Maintain/improve air quality Reduce GHG emissions - carbon dioxide Reduce GHG emissions - methane

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

6.0. Development of proposals for an EMS (Approach 5)6.1. IntroductionThe final objective of this project was to develop proposals for an environmental management system (EMS) and create a prototype. The approach was to develop a concept for an EMS based on the findings of approaches 2 and 3.

Firstly we need to define what is meant by an environmental management system. The international standard is ISO 14001 and was first published in 1996. It specifies the requirements for an EMS, which includes identifying all the environmental aspects which the organisation has control and over which it can be expected to have an influence. However, ISO 14001 is a tool more suited to larger organisation (Newbold, et al. 1997) and thus uptake within agriculture has been minimal. More informal approaches have been developed, such as the LEAF audit and the Environmental Management for Agriculture (EMA) software (Lewis and Bardon, 1998). However, although successful in their own right, the uptake of these systems is still relatively low. The development of assurance schemes, and their associated audits, means there is little room for additional audits in an industry that is already heavily burdened with record keeping and 'paperwork'.

The general principle underlying any EMS is the concept of continuous improvement, whereby changes to practices are implemented in a step-by-step fashion to steadily improve environmental performance over time. This concept is also embedded in many of the assurance schemes with respect to improving farm practices for other purposes such as food safety and animal health and welfare. The key elements of this process are the same regardless of the end outcome and include:

Audit/review Identification of strengths and weaknesses Development of an action plan Implementation

These processes fit into a cycle of continuous improvement (see Figure 6.1), which is often operated annually. The prototype EMS proposed within this project is also based on the principle of continuous improvement and follows the same steps as those laid out in Figure 6.1. Additionally, given that the industry is already heavily burdened with audits and inspections, the proposed EMS aims to build on existing systems rather than add to them. This is explained in more detailed, with other aspects that have been taken into consideration, in section 6.2.

The working title of the proposed EMS is OASys (which is short for Outcomes from Agricultural Systems). At the time of writing this report the online prototype was still under construction, but it will soon be available at the following URL:

http://www.adlib.ac.uk/oasys/

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59


Figure 6.1. EMS Cycle of continuous improvement

6.2. Key aspects taken into consideration for the proposed EMSA number of aspects have been taken into account when developing the prototype EMS, including:

1. Utilising the work undertaken in approaches 1 to 3: A substantial amount of work was undertaken in approaches 1 to 3 resulting in a number of different outputs. Two of these outputs have been used to underpin the proposed EMS. These are the AEO database (see section 3.2) and a database that identifies the activities that different whole farm and targeted initiatives promote. In order to utilise these two databases they have been combined and restructured into a suitable format that can be used by the prototype EMS. This has involved developing export routines from the AEO database and schemes and initiatives database.

2. The EMS should build upon existing systems and not 'reinvent the wheel': It would be easy to propose the development of a new EMS from scratch in which we create a set of interfaces to gather detailed information from farmers (auditing), develop algorithms to assess strengths and weaknesses, etc. However, much of this has been done before in one form or another and at the outset of this project it was already recognised that an attempt to promote something entirely new may not be welcomed by a farming industry that is already saturated with systems and initiatives. Therefore, the proposed EMS aims to utilise existing systems and data as much as possible. In particular drawing upon the data gathered about assurance schemes (see section 4) and the schemes and initiatives database mentioned in point 1 above.

3. It should be simple to use, with minimal data input: Following on from point 2, any new system needs to be simple to use and not overly demanding with respect to data entry. The farming industry would not welcome a system that requires farmers to enter detailed information about their practices, much of which they already have to submit for one or more other schemes and initiatives – thus data entry duplication needs to be avoided. The proposed system has attempted to overcome this by utilising the data mentioned in points 1 and 2 above. It does have the scope for more detailed data entry if necessary, but this would be considered to be an advanced option and is not something that has been implemented in the prototype.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

6.3. Prototype EMS: OASys - Outcomes from Agricultural Systems6.3.1. Overview

The proposed EMS is known as OASys. The concept is a relatively simple one as shown in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2. Overview of OASys

The process shown in Figure 6.2 involves the following:

1. The user creates a farm profile by selecting:i. The enterprises on the farm (e.g. dairy, cereals, etc.)ii. Any policies in place (e.g. do not irrigate, do not use synthetic pesticides, etc.)iii. Any schemes or initiatives they belong to (e.g. ACCS, cross compliance, ELS, etc.)

2. The farm profile is used to determine what activities are relevant to the farm, any activities that are definitely not undertaken (i.e. from the policies in place) and the farm activities that are undertaken as a consequence any schemes or initiatives.

3. The user is presented with an overview of the activities that are being done on the farm and the potential benefits (or burdens) these have in relation to the outcome groups (see Appendix A). This allows users to identify any strengths and weaknesses. The same process will also identify any activities that the users should avoid if possible (i.e. activities that may be having a negative impact). Finally, the user can identify activities that they should implement. This can be done by selecting a particular outcome group to see what activities would boost performance in relation to this outcome. Alternatively, a selection of outcome groups could be selected and activities that may meet the selected outcomes will be listed. Additionally, activities can be ranked in order of their strength with respect the contribution they provide to the selected outcome(s).

4. The process undertaken in point 3 will result in a list of activities that the farm should implement, ranked according to their potential to provide benefit to one or more outcomes. Each activity listed is supported with a selection of links to best practice guidance (utilising ADLib) that will provide the user information on how to implement the activities listed.

In theory the actions selected by the user could then be stored and effectively added to the farm profile and then the OASys assessment undertaken again, thus completing the cycle of continuous improvement (see Figure 6.1). However, this functionality has not been implemented within the prototype.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

6.3.2. OASys Components and processes6.3.2.1. Farm profile

The process of creating the farm profile is a simple process of checking tick boxes on the screen. The process is divided into 3 steps:

1. Enterprises. These are the main agricultural enterprises that are in place on the farm as well as some of the main components of the farm, for example grassland may not be an enterprise in itself, but it is listed as one here as it is a key component of the farm system. Table 6.1 shows the enterprises that are currently listed within OASys.

Table 6.1. OASys Enterprise List

Enterprise NotesAll Farms Selected by default (so not visible to the user) and includes

activities generic to all farmsCattle (beef and dairy)Cereal and oilseedsDairy (enterprise) Covers activities specific to dairy in addition to Cattle enterpriseField croppingFresh produceGrasslandNo crop or grassland (buildings only) Use for situations where no land is managed on the farmPigsPoultryProtected cropping Used for glasshouses and polytunnelsSheep

2. Policies. These are mainly items that define what is not done on the farm or what is relevant. The selection of the enterprises above will determine all the activities that are relevant to the farm. The policies will refine the list based on the approaches adopted on the farm. Table 6.2 shows the policies that are currently listed within OASys.

Table 6.2. OASys Policy List

Policy NotesDo not have any livestock Selected when farm does not have any livestock enterprisesDo not heat greenhousesDo not use irrigationDo not use livestock manures or slurriesDo not use manufactured nitrogen fertiliser

Selected when farm is organic

Do not use plastic sheetDo not use sewage sludge Selected when farm is organicDo not use synthetic pesticides Selected when farm is organicDitches are not a characteristic of the local area

Used to determine relevant features on the farm, particularly in relation to ELS options

Hedgerows are not a characteristic of the local area


Stone walls are not a characteristic of the local area


Stone-faced hedgebanks are not a characteristic of the local area


3. Schemes and initiatives. These are used to determine what activities are currently being done on the farm. The database underlying OASys contains information on what activities must be done for different schemes and initiatives. Thus selecting a scheme saves the user time, as it becomes unnecessary to select every activity they undertake. The farm may undertake other activities and these could also be selected in a separate process (as described in the overview – section 6.3.1) but this functionality is not present in the prototype. The purpose of using schemes and initiatives to form the activity list is part of the philosophy of utilising existing knowledge and systems. Table 6.3 shows the schemes and initiatives that are currently listed within OASys.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Table 6.3. OASys Scheme and Initiative List

Policy NotesAssured British Meat: Beef and Lamb Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyAssured British Pigs Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyAssured Chicken Production Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyAssured Combinable Crops Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyAssured Dairy Farms Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyAssured Produce Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyCompendium of UK Organic Standards Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyConservation Grade Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyCross Compliance: All This includes all GAECs and SMRs, but tailored to the specific

enterprises on the farm. For example, livestock related GAECs and SMRs would not apply on an arable only farm.

ELS: Arable and Sheep Farm This is an example selection of ELS options CCB (2005a) as it would not be appropriate for all ELS options to be implemented

ELS: Cattle and Sheep Farm This is an example selection of ELS options CCB (2005b) as it would not be appropriate for all ELS options to be implemented

ELS: Cereal Farm This is an example selection of ELS options CCB (2005c) as it would not be appropriate for all ELS options to be implemented

ELS: Dairy Farm This is an example selection of ELS options CCB (2005d) as it would not be appropriate for all ELS options to be implemented

Farm Assured Welsh Livestock Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyGenesis: Arable and Sugar Beet Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyGenesis: Beef and Sheep Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyGenesis: Pigs Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyLEAF Marque Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyNI FQAS: Beef and Lamb Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyQMS: Cattle and Sheep Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyQMS: Pigs Critical failure point (or equivalent) activities onlyVoluntary Initiative (VI) This implies that all the activities promoted under the banner of

the VI are implemented on the farm.

Note: The lists of enterprises, policies, schemes and initiatives above are currently within the prototype. Others could be added or the lists amended upon further development and refinement.

6.3.2.2. Assessment routine

The assessment routine undertaken in OASys is identical to the outcome assessment undertaken within this project. This process is described in detail in section 4.3 and utilises the activity-outcome matrix/database described in Section 3. However, in summary the process is as follows:

1. All the activities relevant to the farm (determined from the enterprises selected in Table 6.1 and amended by the policies selected in Table 6.2) are used to calculate the maximum and minimum scores that can be achieved for each individual outcome, using the scores for each activity in the activity-outcome matrix.

2. All the activities that are being undertaken on the farm (determined from the schemes and initiatives selected in Table 6.3) are used to calculate a score for each individual outcome by summing the scores in the activity-outcome matrix for each activity undertaken.

3. A percentage score for each individual outcome is calculated by dividing the scores calculated in step 2 by the maximum score calculated in step 1. (Note: if the score in step 2 is negative it is expressed as a percentage of the minimum, whereas if the score is positive it expressed as a percentage of the maximum).

4. A score for each outcome group is calculated by averaging the percentage scores for all the individual outcomes within the group. Note: if an individual outcome within a group is not relevant to the farm, i.e. the max and min scores calculated in step 1 are zero, then that outcome is excluded from the averaging calculation.

The results of the assessment are presented slightly differently to how they are presented within the outcome assessment study (see section 4.4 and Appendices C and D).

6.3.2.3. Assessment results

The outcome assessment process generates a lot of numbers. Although these are important they are not very user friendly. Therefore in order to make the results more digestible within the context of identifying strengths and weaknesses, the numbers can be converted to performance categories using the schema shown in Table 6.4.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Table 6.4. OASys performance assessment categories

OASys Score Category-100 to -81 Abysmal-80 to -61 Extremely poor-60 to -41 Very poor-40 to -21 Fairly poor-20 to 0 Marginally poor>0 to 20 Marginally good21 to 40 Fairly good41 to 60 Very good61 to 80 Extremely good81 to 100 Excellent

Note: The score ranges and category descriptions are just for development purposes. It is envisaged that they would be reviewed and amended where necessary after a period of testing.Note: This functionality may not be available in the prototype.

An example of the results the user would get is shown in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5. Example OASys performance assessment results (example shown is based on a farm with a beef cattle enterprise who is a member of ABM and is also doing cross compliance and LEAF Marque)

Outcome PerformanceAir quality Marginally poorAnimal health and welfare ExcellentBiodiversity Extremely goodBiosecurity Very goodCarbon sequestration Marginally goodCountryside access and recreation Fairly goodEconomic Very goodEfficient use of resources Very goodEnergy Marginally goodFood safety ExcellentFood security Very goodGreenhouse gas emissions Fairly goodLandscape and heritage Very goodPublic safety Fairly goodSoil quality Very goodWaste and recycling Fairly goodWater quality Very goodWorker health, safety and welfare Marginally good

Note: In theory it would be possible to weight specific outcomes and/or outcome groups so that they are prioritised and this is reflected in the performance assessment results. However, this functionality has not been implemented in the prototype and thus all outcomes and outcome groups have equal weighting.

6.3.2.4. Action plan

The OASys assessment will identify the key strengths and weaknesses for the farm. The next step is to identify activities that will help improve the performance of the farm, which can be done in a number of ways.

Firstly, following on from the results shown in Table 6.5, the user may decide they wish to explore how they can improve their performance with respect to air quality. Selecting air quality will display a list of activities that the farm could implement that would improve air quality. An example list of activities is shown in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6. Example list of activities to improve air quality

Activity Matrix Score Score relevant to farmUse band spreader / trailing shoe to spread slurry 5 18Use injection to spread slurry 4.5 16Dilute slurry with water 3 11Irrigate field with water after slurry application 3 11Use mechanical separation to remove solids from slurry 3 11

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

Activity Matrix Score Score relevant to farmAdd acid to slurry 2 7Avoid the use of ammonium sulphate on alkaline soils (>pH 7)

2 7

Place covers over slurry stores 2 7Reduce the use of urea as a fertiliser 2 7Use urease inhibitors 2 7

The activities in Table 6.6 are listed in order of the potential they have for providing benefit for air quality. This ranking is based on the matrix score and can be expressed in the context of the relevance to the farm, working on a similar basis to the performance assessment the matrix score can be expressed as a percentage of the maximum the farm can score for air quality. In the OASys prototype the scores will not be shown – they will be ranked using terms such as high, medium or low.

Secondly, it is possible to examine activities in the context of multiple outcomes. Table 6.7 shows an example where activities to improve carbon sequestration are listed, but also showing the scores each activity has for other outcomes.

Table 6.7. Example list of activities to improve carbon sequestration, plus the potential benefit or burden on other outcomes

Air

qual

ity

Ani

mal

hea

lth a

nd w

elfa

re

Bio

dive

rsity

Bio

secu

rity

Car

bon

sequ

estra

tion

Cou

ntry

side

acc

ess

and

recr

eatio

n

Eco

nom

ic

Effi

cien

t use

of r

esou

rces

Ene

rgy

Food

saf

ety

Food

sec

urity

Gre

enho

use

gas

emis

sion

s

Land

scap

e an

d he

ritag

e

Pub

lic s

afet

y

Soi

l qua

lity

Was

te a

nd re

cycl

ing

Wat

er q

ualit

y

Wor

ker h

ealth

, saf

ety

and

wel

fare

Plant trees / create new woodland 0 0 0 0 21.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shallow spiking, slitting or subsoiling 0 0 0.5 0 13.5 0 0.2 0 -10.2 2.8 2.3 -4.8 0.6 8 6.1 0 2.9 0

Maintain (or Increase) the area of rough grassland on farms 0 0 0.2 0 13.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maintain (or increase) the area of unimproved grassland on farms

0 0 0.2 0 13.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Plant a vegetative windbreak between sprayed areas and surrounding environment

0 0 0.8 0 10.8 0 0.6 0.4 0 0 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0

Table 6.7 shows how some activities have benefits in addition to carbon sequestration, for example for biodiversity, efficient use of resources and water quality. However, some activities may also have negative impacts. For example, 'shallow spiking, slitting or subsoiling' can help improve soil structure and in turn improve nutrient uptake and carbon sequestration, but it also increases the energy used for field operations and thus emissions of greenhouse gases.

There is also scope to show highlight to the user that some of the activities could be implemented by becoming a member of a scheme or initiative. For example, OASys can highlight that 'maintain (or Increase) the area of rough grassland on farms' could be implemented as an option as part of ELS. Thus the user could opt to implement a number of actions by joining a particular scheme, and thus gaining the benefits of scheme membership (such as financial benefits) as well as contributing to the outcomes identified from using OASys.

This provides a holistic perspective that is needed for integrated farm management. It allows the consequences of different activities to be understood with respect to the benefits and burdens for different outcomes. The aim is to undertake activities that maximise the benefits and minimise the burdens. Clearly, there are trade-offs, but the above approach allows users to make informed decisions with regard to multiple objectives and trade-offs for all or a selection of outcomes.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

A similar approach can also be used to identify activities to be avoided. Table 6.8 shows a list of activities to be avoided because of the potential burdens they may have to one or more outcomes.

Table 6.8. Example list of activities to be avoided (note: outcomes that score zero for all activities have been removed in this table for display purposes)

Bio

dive

rsity

Car

bon

sequ

estra

tion

Cou

ntry

side

acc

ess

and

recr

eatio

n

Eco

nom

ic

Effi

cien

t use

of r

esou

rces

Ene

rgy

Food

saf

ety

Food

sec

urity

Gre

enho

use

gas

emis

sion

s

Land

scap

e an

d he

ritag

e

Pub

lic s

afet

y

Soi

l qua

lity

Was

te a

nd re

cycl

ing

Wat

er q

ualit

y

Increase concentrate feeds in diet of ruminant livestock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5.5 0 0 0 0 0

Apply nitrogen in excess of grassland requirements -1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5.3Intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage any of the special interest features of an SSSI -9.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hedgerows are trimmed more often than every two or three years -3.5 0 0 -6.2 0 0 0 0 0 -10.7 5.8 0 0 0

Do not recycle pesticide packaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -19.2 0Do not reuse or recycle fertiliser packaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -19.2 0Do not reuse or recycle plastic silage wrap/sheet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -19.2 0Remove stone walls -2.6 0 0 -6.2 0 0 0 0 0 -10.7 0 0 0 0Cultivate land on archaeological sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -21 0 0 0 0Valuable trees are felled and removed -1.2 0 0 -6.2 0 0 0 0 0 -14.3 0 0 0 0Aggressive cows are not identified and/or removed from grazing in popular access areas 0 0 -19.2 -6.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bulls are run with cows in open countryside or in fields crossed by routes to open countryside 0 0 -19.2 -6.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Remove hedgerows -5.6 0 0 -6.2 0 0 0 0 0 -14.3 0 0 0 0Public rights of way, and related structures, are not maintained 0 0 -23.1 -6.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Block public rights of way 0 0 -38.5 -6.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Increase number of ruminant livestock -0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -35.3 0 0 0 0 -11.9Water leaks are not repaired 0 0 0 -9.8 -24.2 -6.1 0 0 -2.9 0 0 0 -19.2 0Use synthetic pesticides on non-food crops (incl grass and forage) -7.4 0 0 0 -3.4 -12.2 0 0.6 -6.8 0 0 -25 -9.6 -6.3

Use pesticides that are not legally approved -7.7 0 0 -16.4 -5.6 0 -13.9 -38.5 0 0 0 0 0 0Undertake mechanical field operations on grassland when the soil is waterlogged -3 -41.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -10.6 -36.4 -18.2 0 -19.4

Ball-valves on livestock water troughs are damaged and/or not correctly set -7.2 0 0 -7.5 -7 -4.1 0 -23.1 -19.4 -7.9 -27.3 -13.6 -3.8 -10.6

Convert grassland to arable (by ploughing) -2.8 -58.3 0 -16.4 -5.6 0 -25 -38.5 -13.3 -10.6 -36.4 -18.2 0 -24.2

The activities in Table 6.8 are listed in order of those that should be most avoided (at the bottom), as can be seen by the large negative number against the outcomes. Clearly the majority of these activities should be avoided, but there are some instances where there are trade-offs. For example, trimming hedgerows more often than every two or three years can have a negative impact on biodiversity and landscape, but it can also have a positive impact with regard to road safety. Clearly if the farm has no hedges adjacent to public roads then this is not an issue. However, there may be other instances where hedges adjacent to roads do have to be managed in this way, and thus the trade-off with biodiversity and landscape will have to be made.

Potentially the user could also select only those outcomes that of interest to them and then OASys would rank activities according to those that best meet all those outcomes (similar to an optimisation process). However, this functionality has not been implemented within the prototype.

6.3.2.5. ADLib Guidance

To aid the process of creating and implementing an action plan OASys provides relevant support and guidance. This is done utilising the Agricultural Document Library (ADLib) (Tzilivakis & Lewis, 2007). ADLib was launched in 2004, but its origins can be traced back to 1994 when the award winning EMA software (Lewis and Bardon, 1998)

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

was developed. This software included an electronic library of key best practice documents that were used to help support the environmental auditing system. This library was a valued resource in itself, so in 2004 the whole library was converted into an online format and re-branded as ADLib. The ADLib resource has been massively expanded over time and now contains over 1600 documents (~35000 pages) including Government codes of practice, industry guidelines, information and topic sheets, legislation summaries, glossaries and an extensive contacts directory. A few of the documents in ADLib are not available anywhere else, either because as they are out of print, or because there is no electronic version elsewhere, or both. All documents are cross-referenced using hyperlinks to individual pages or paragraphs ('deep-linking'), thus taking the user to the most relevant information within a document rather than just the front page. There are also extensive searching and bookmarking facilities, including a keyword search facility that will also search down to individual pages and paragraphs. By having this information in one place and in a common electronic format, it becomes a very powerful, flexible knowledge base that can be utilised in a number of different ways. Current applications in which the ADLib resource is used / integrated include Defra's Whole Farm Approach, the EMA online library, the FACTS website, and the Assured Produce and HDC websites.

Each of the activities listed within the OASys system will have links to associated guidance. Thus when the user is presented with a list of activities, such as those presented in Tables 6.6 and 6.7 above, they are also provided with links to advice and guidance about those activities, including how to implement them.

For example, in Table 6.6 at the top of the list is the suggestion to "use band spreader / trailing shoe to spread slurry". When presented on screen this could have a link to Booklet 3 of Managing Livestock Manures: Spreading Systems for Slurries and Solid Manures (ADAS, 2001), and the power of ADLib means that we can link to the specific page about band spreaders/trailing shoes within this booklet and not just a PDF file.

Thus the user ends up with a list of suggested activities, the benefits (or burdens) these may have in relation to range of outcomes, and links to guidance and further information about the activities to aid their implementation on the farm.

6.3.3. Strengths and weaknesses of OASys

The OASys tool is a novel system and only a prototype, thus it is far from a polished product or service. However, a number of strengths and weaknesses have been identified and these are outlined below.

Strengths:

Simple and easy to use. At the moment the system consists of just checking a few boxes on the screen (perhaps 5-10 boxes) and clicking on one button to get results. There is potential for this to be a bit more complicated if the user wishes to select individual activities, but this would be just more check boxes.

Connects activities to end outcomes. The tool connects activities to end outcomes, which is something that has been lacking in many previous assessments/tools, but is essential if we are to truly tackle sustainability issues.

Partly based on existing systems. It was a recognised at the outset of this project that an attempt to promote something entirely new may not be welcomed by the industry. This tool has specifically aimed to partly integrate with existing systems, at least with respect to the activities being promoted by different schemes and initiatives. Ideally it would also be good for any data stored online about the farm (such as scheme membership) to be fully transferable from any existing systems into OASys. This is technically feasible (especially as OASys has been developed using the same IT company and systems utilised by the many of the assurance scheme operators), but has not been explored for this prototype.

Weaknesses:

The method is new/novel. The methods and techniques developed within this study and used within OASys are new and are thus untested. However, they have been successfully applied within this study and there is scope to further refine the techniques and underlying knowledge.

Some aspects might be oversimplified. In such a holistic study some aspects have inevitably been simplified. It is considered that most of the key factors have been captured within the AEO database, but there may be some complexities that are not well represented either due to lack of information or limitations within the database in terms of its structure. Again, this is something that could be addressed by further refining the approach and underlying knowledge.

Legacy. The database of activities associated with schemes and initiatives needs to be kept up to date as schemes and initiatives change, especially the assurance schemes. There is a legacy in keeping this aspect up to date for the future. If it is not kept up to date the system would soon become obsolete. However, this is something that all systems face in one form or another.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

7.0. Discussion7.1. IntroductionThe title of this project is "assessment of reduction in environmental burdens through targeted measures compared with whole farm approaches in cropping and livestock systems", which in itself is a very broad area to cover. However, the actual project has encompassed much, more including farm assurance, integrated farming, environmental management, socio-economic issues and animal health and welfare. This has resulted in an extremely holistic research project.

There are number of aspects about the project and that have arisen within the findings that can be discussed. These include:

Defining an activities, effects, outcomes, burdens and benefits Determining what are a whole farm approach and a targeted initiatives Placing this work within the context of integrated farming and environmental management

Firstly however, it is important to review the strengths of the approach and likewise any weaknesses within the study with respect to the methods used and any consequent limitations in the findings.

7.2. Strengths and weaknesses in the approach and limitations of the findings7.2.1. Strengths

In many respects many of the strengths of the approach are also the weaknesses. New and novel techniques have been specifically developed within the study to address the problems associated with trying to understand sustainability in complex agro-ecosystems. Addressing these issues is a step in the right direction, but as the techniques used are new this is also a weakness and this discussed below (section 7.2.2).

The AEO database and 'weak link' scoring system were specifically developed for this study. The idea was to fully map all the potential outcomes and all the activities that contribute towards those outcomes. This was done by both tracing all the effects of particular activities (top-down) and determining all the factors that contribute towards particular outcomes (bottom-up). This mapping process required the development novel database structure and some sophisticated interrogation software. This has resulted in a very holistic knowledge base, as the AEO database also contains details of relevant scientific and best practice literature, thus providing evidence to support all the links that have been mapped out. This in itself is a valuable output from this study as it can be interrogated to explore linkages between different activities, effects and outcomes. It also has the potential to be used for other applications, particularly with respect to policy analysis or formulation, but also with respect to the development of on farm tools, for example benchmarking analysis.

In this study the approach has been used to evaluate a number of schemes and initiatives. The weak link scoring system has been used to create a matrix of activities and outcomes. Again this in itself is another valuable output from the project as it provides a simple (albeit large) table that cross references activities with end outcomes. As discussed in previous reports (Tzilivakis et al., 2007), many schemes and initiatives are activity based with respect to the standards or restrictions that they put in place on farms. However, actual end outcomes are the desired result of any scheme, initiative or policy. Outcome based standards or schemes though are inherently difficult to develop and implement, thus we rely on activity based approaches. This is acceptable, but it is important not to lose sight of the end outcomes and aim to ensure that the activities promoted to lead to the desired outcomes. The approach used with this study provides that connection by mapping the effect chain between activities and outcomes, thus ensuring outcomes are at the forefront. Additionally, the approach also identifies trade-offs between outcomes, thus aiding the process of selecting and promoting activities that meet multiple outcomes in an optimally and integrated fashion.

7.2.2. Weaknesses and limitations

The key limitations, or weaknesses, within the project are the AEO database and the 'weak link' scoring system, principally because they are new and novel. The AEO database was an ambitious task to undertake within the time and resources of the project. However, it is a necessary task that has been missing from many previous studies that have endeavoured to take a holistic perspective within the context of assessing the impacts of agricultural practices. Just the process of formally creating activity-effect-outcome chains (with supporting evidence) is a valuable contribution to holistic environmental impact assessment.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

The AEO database (and it's derivation that supports the OASys tool) is very much a 'live' database or knowledge base. In some respects it can be argued that it is not complete, but this is probably because it will never be. New knowledge and evidence regarding the effect of different agricultural activities, the consequent effects and processes, and impacts on end outcomes, is growing all the time. Therefore, it is important that the AEO database is updated accordingly. Indeed the database that supports the OASys tool has been designed with this functionality in mind. This ensures that OASys utilises the most current knowledge and information available.

The weak link approach (see section 3.2.3) was deemed the best approach for scoring activity-outcome relationships that was not overly complex and would work with the structure of the AEO database. However, this study is the first time such a system has been utilised, so it is an untested method. It could be argued that a more valid approach would be to create a matrix of activities and outcomes and use expert judgement to place a score on the contribution that each activity has on each outcome. However, this does not capture the linkages and processes between activities and outcomes. Additionally, it should be noted that the weak link approach is a means of structuring the expert judgement scoring process. Expert judgement (utilising the evidence available) is used to score each link within the AEO database and the weak link system provides the means of generating the overall score between an activity and an end outcome.

Generally, based on the results in this study it is considered that, for the majority of activities and outcomes, the AEO database and weak link approach works well. Those activities that would be considered to be significant with respect to a particular outcome score high and those that are not so significant score low. However, there are undoubtedly a few anomalies where this may not be the case. This may be due to:

Linkages in the AEO database not being scientifically correct Incorrectly scored links Missing activities and effects

Alternatively, it could be the AEO database and weak link approach is revealing a slightly different understanding of the effect of a particular activity than was previously thought.

Ideally what is needed is a complete review and critique of each link within the AEO database, and a review of the activity-effect-outcome chains. However, this is beyond the time and resources of this study.

It is considered that, although there are weaknesses in the methodology, generally the results (particularly at the outcome group level) are reasonably sound and within the realms of what might be expected. Any anomalies that have arisen are likely to be relatively small and are not introducing any major bias into the findings. However, when examining the results it is important to take into account the weaknesses outlined above. For example, should any particular part of the results be used to support decisions, the results should be evaluated in the light of the limitations described here to determine any significant uncertainties.

7.3. Activities, effects, outcomes, burdens and benefitsThe process of creating the AEO database, including defining activities, effects, outcomes and the linkages between them, has been a somewhat 'organic' process. As the consequences of activities (top-down) or causes of outcomes (bottom-up) have been identified, they have revealed further effects or causes that have needed to be mapped out. During this process there is often some ambiguity over whether something is an activity, effect or outcome. For example 'loosen compacted soil layers on arable land' could be regarded as an activity in itself. However, how that is carried out, e.g. by 'shallow spiking, slitting or subsoiling' is also important as it determines other impacts, such consumption of fossil fuels and GHG emissions.

A similar issue is when do the consequences (effects) of an activity become end outcomes? There are inevitably always further consequences, e.g. emissions of GHGs will have impacts on climate change, but in this study reducing GHG emissions is the end outcome. In many instances the end outcomes have been derived from societal goals, such as objectives laid out in government policy or strategy documents. However, there is an inherent subjective element to defining the outcomes and it is important to acknowledge this.

Another important aspect is the wording of activities. Some define an activity that needs to be done, whilst others relate to avoidance of certain practices. Many activities have been derived from assurance scheme standards where conformance points are often defined as activities that members 'must do' or 'must not do'. When constructing the AEO database we have tried to take this issue into account by creating equal and opposite activities where appropriate. For example, one activity may say 'do not cultivate land on archaeological sites' (as required by some ELS options), thus we have an equal and opposite activity of 'cultivate land on archaeological sites', where the former will obtain a positive score and the latter a negative score. This process has been done in many instances, but not for all activities, thus there is probably a bias towards positive activities within the AEO database. This does not influence the results, as many of the opposite negative activities (that have not been included in the database) are not promoted by any of the whole farm or targeted schemes. However, should the

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

system be developed further in the future this is something that may need to be addressed, especially within the more open-ended framework of an EMS such as OASys.

In relation to this, many activities within the AEO database are about reducing burdens and in most instances that reduction is scored positively. However, it could be argued that the reduction should be about minimising a negative score in order to reflect the actual burden (and benefit for positive scores). Such an approach was taken within a previous Defra project for the eco-rating system with the Environmental Management for Agriculture (EMA) software (Lewis et al., 1997a & 1997b; Lewis and Bardon, 1998). To some extent the approach to scoring is arbitrary as the score range could be 0 to 200 instead of -100 to +100, and the important aspect is the interpretation of the score. However, the use of positive and negative scores does have resonance with reflecting benefits and burdens, so this could be something that should be reviewed should the system be taken forward.

7.4. Whole farm approaches and targeted initiativesThe exact classification of a scheme or initiative as being a whole farm or targeted approach is somewhat blurred. This project has shown that some schemes that might be regarded as whole farm do not cover all issues, and some which may be considered targeted provide additional benefits to non-target outcomes. The research has shown, perhaps not unsurprisingly, that a combination of whole farm and targeted approaches results in the delivery on the greatest potential benefit. However, it can be argued that neither 'whole farm' nor 'targeted' initiatives on their own will meet all objectives.

If we explore this from the perspective of managing a farm, many aspects of both whole farm and targeted initiatives are about complying with a set of standards. For example, for an assurance scheme (e.g. ACCS) and even the supplementary schemes (e.g. LEAF Marque) a farm has to comply with standards to gain certification and thus access to markets. With regard to targeted initiatives a farm must comply with certain requirements in order to either avoid breaking the law (and associated penalties) or in order to receive payments, such as under SPS or ELS, or in the case of Voluntary Initiative the incentive may be to avoid the imposition of regulation.

So from a farms perspective, it's all about meeting requirements, be they part of an assurance scheme or meeting legislative requirements. However, this does not necessarily mean decisions are being made in an integrated or holistic fashion.

The whole farm approaches included in this study may not necessarily be whole farm, since the term 'whole farm' can be used in a number of contexts. It can be used in the context of:

1. Systems addressing all farm activities2. Processes that integrate activities/decisions3. Addressing multiple objectives and outcomes (multifunctional farming)

In the past, integrated approaches to production were about combining decisions that would have been made independently before. For example, crop nutrition decisions may have been made separately to crop protection decisions, whereas under an integrated system such decisions will be made together (and include other aspects such water management, crop rotations, etc.) in order optimise the use of inputs for a single end output, i.e. economically optimum quality and yield. This approach has now been expanded to encompass not only achieving economically optimum quality and yield, but also ensuring environmental objectives are achieved. In so doing, in order to meet a broader range of objectives a wider selection of farm activities need to be brought into the integrated decision making process.

7.5. Integrated farming and environmental managementAs described above, a farm needs to comply with a range of requirements, be they from assurance schemes (or other market demands) or legislative responsibilities. Many of those requirements stem from desired end outcomes. As this study has shown, assurance schemes tend to aim to deliver on aspects such as food safety and animal welfare, while legislation often addresses those outcomes that are not greatly covered by market driven schemes, such as the environment or worker health and welfare.

Regardless of the source, a farm is faced with a list of the requirements that need to be complied with, in terms of restrictions on, or requirements to undertake, certain activities. In turn, these activities should result in desired outcomes. However, with an increasing shift towards multiple objectives, multi-functional farming and more outcome-based requirements, a more integrated approach is required.

A more integrated approach requires that the broader consequences of any decisions are known, especially when there are several options to choose from. For example, in order to reduce ochratoxin A production on cereal grains during storage (for the purposes of food safety) it is important to rapidly dry grain to below 18% moisture content (FSA, 2007a & b). This can be achieved by using hot air to dry the grain, but this also requires increased

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

energy use (probably non-renewable), fuel costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Other options such as the use of ambient air, the correct air flow and better designed and well maintained grain stores, may negate the need to use hot air, thus the consequent energy and GHG emissions. It may be that the increased energy and GHG emissions may be acceptable for the extra benefit provided by using hot air, but the important thing is a more holistic and integrated perspective has been taken during the decision. This is a relatively simple example, but the approach should be the same for all farm management decisions.

In many respects, the decision making process is no different to how it has always been. A number of factors are taken into account and a decision made that best meets the objectives. Within the context of a farm business the principle aim will still be to make decisions that result in economic profit, this is a fundamental pillar in any sustainable system. The next step is to make decisions that also deliver other benefits and/or which minimise any burdens. In many instances economic profit will go hand in hand with other benefits, especially where those benefits are driven by market demand. In other instances legislative instruments are in place to address market failure and internalise external costs, e.g. penalties for environmental damage or subsidies for environmental improvements.

Many farmers will strive to achieve a range of outcomes beyond those of a profitable business, regardless of any market or legislative pressures. Social responsibility is not confined to the realm of corporate reports. Many agricultural businesses recognise the important stewardship role that they play. Additionally many farms place a great deal of pride in the performance of their farm, not just in terms of the quality of the produce, but the way it is produced. These drivers are not to be underestimated, they should be acknowledged and any management and support systems should aim to support such drivers.

The EMS proposed in this study, OASys, will not deliver all the desired outcomes (see Appendix A) on its own, as it is not designed to do this. However, in combination with all the existing whole farm and targeted systems examined in this study, it aims to help farms meet multiple objectives, such as minimising burdens and maximising benefits within the context of a profitable business. It does not attempt to prescribe a detailed solution or blueprint for any particular farm. Decisions on individual farms should be based on the exact idiosyncratic circumstances of that farm. What it does do is provide a holistic perspective on a range of agricultural practices via the potential benefits they have to offer with respect to a broad range of end outcomes. It is then down to the individual farm to decide which of those benefits is of most importance to their business and thus what activities to implement within an action plan and the context of a continuous cycle of improvement. There is additional benefit in that OASys can also identify if any suggested activities are part of any scheme, as joining that scheme might prove to be a good way to implement such activities for the farm, due to any additional market benefits (such as via an assurance scheme) or due to any subsidies, such as in ELS.

Finally, OASys also has potential for use by policy makers and scheme authors. If we are to develop more integrated approaches to farm management, then it is important that any schemes and initiatives take a more integrated approach in themselves. If farmers are 'forced' to conform to certain standards, and those standards are not developed in an integrated way, then they become static 'pillars' around which other decisions have to fit. Whereas if standards are more flexible and set on the basis of meeting multiple objectives, then they will be more conducive to integrated approaches on farms. The OASys tool can aid the process of setting standards, by aiding the authors (be they policy makers or assurance scheme owners) in understanding the potential benefits and/or burdens of the activities promoted within their scheme or initiative.

7.6. To concludeThis has been a very holistic research project covering a broad range of issues. It was deemed that such an approach was necessary in order to gain a full grasp on understanding sustainability within agricultural systems.

If we return to the title of this project 'assessment of reduction in environmental burdens through targeted measures compared with whole farm approaches in cropping and livestock systems', the main conclusion is that whole farm and targeted approaches each have a role to play and that a truly whole farm system is needed to meet multiple objectives. However, whether a truly whole farm system exists is debatable. LEAF Marque in combination with an assurance scheme comes close, but it is tied in with a market based scheme and as such becomes another list of conformance points, rather than a whole farm management system.

Previously we described a truly whole farm approach as one which addresses all farm activities, that integrates activities/decisions and addresses multiple objectives and outcomes. If this is the case, then the only true whole farm management system is probably the farmer or the farm business itself. Thus what is needed is a tool to aid the farm business in meeting multiple objectives. Some of the whole farm and targeted initiatives covered in this study could be considered as tools to aid management, such as the checklists of assurance schemes, but each operates in its own right with its own objectives. The approach proposed within this study aims to integrate with all these schemes and thus provide the holistic perspective that is needed for any business to evolve in a sustainable direction.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

ReferencesABM (2008a) ABM Beef and Lamb Farm Standards 2006. Version 6.1 (Implemented from 11 January 2008).

Assured British Meat.ABP (2007) Certification Standards, Final Version August 2007ACCS (2008) Assured Combinable Crops and Sugar Beet Scheme Standards. Assured Combinable Crops. ACC

and Sugar Beet Standards 2008-09 finalACP (2007) Poultry Standards 2008 -2009 for Breeder Replacement, Breeder Layers, Hatchery Chickens, Free

Range, Poussin, Catching, Transport & Slaughter, including Operating Procedures. Revised December 2007.ADAS (2001) Managing Livestock Manures. Booklet 3. Spreading systems for slurries and solid manures. ADAS,

IGER & SRI for MAFF (now Defra).ADF (2008a) Assured Dairy Farms. Standards and Guidelines for Assessment. Edition 3.2. Issue 1 January 2008

Effective from 1 April 2008AFS (2008a) Assured Food Standards web site - www.redtractor.org.uk, November 2008AP (2008a) Generic Crop Protocol Standards. Assured Produce. Issue No. 1/2008 finalBITC (2008) Business in the Community web site -

www.bitc.org.uk/resources/case_studies/jordans_conservation.html, November 2008CCB (2005a) Arable and Sheep Farm. Entry Level Stewardship Fact Sheet. Cotswolds Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty. Cotswolds Conservation BoardCCB (2005b) Cattle and Sheep Farm. Entry Level Stewardship Fact Sheet. Cotswolds Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty. Cotswolds Conservation BoardCCB (2005c) Cereal Farm. Entry Level Stewardship Fact Sheet. Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Cotswolds Conservation BoardCCB (2005d) Dairy Farm. Entry Level Stewardship Fact Sheet. Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Cotswolds Conservation BoardCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support

schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001

Defra (2002). The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food: Facing the Future. Defra Publications, LondonDefra (2002b) Review of agri-environmental schemes in England. Department for Environment, Food and Rural

AffairsDefra (2003a) Defra: Our Strategy 2003-2006. Defra Publications, LondonDefra (2003b) The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: Addendum. Defra

Publications, LondonDefra (2004a) Delivering the Essentials of Life: Defra's Five Year Strategy. Defra Publications, LondonDefra (2004b) Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain. Defra Publications. PB9469, June 2004.Defra (2005) Securing the Future - UK Government sustainable development strategy. Defra Publications,

LondonDefra (2006a). Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy: Forward Look Supporting economic and statistical

analysis. Defra Publications, LondonDefra (2006b). Pesticides and the Environment: A Strategy for the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products

and Strategy Action Plans. Defra Publications, LondonDefra (2006c) Compendium of UK Organic Standards. September 2006. Defra publicationsDefra (2007a) Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Volumes 1& 2). Defra

Publications, LondonDefra (2007b) Equine Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain (working version). Defra Publications, LondonDefra (2007c) National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Defra Publications, LondonDefra (2007d) UK Biomass Strategy. Defra Publications, LondonDefra (2008) Environmental Stewardship Review of Progress. Defra - Natural England 2008. Published by the

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. PB13076. May 2008Defra (2009). Single Payment Scheme. The Guide to Cross Compliance in England. PB12904. Defra and Rural

Payments Agency Last revised January 2009.ETI (2007) The Base Code. Ethical Trading InitiativeFAWC (1992) FAWC updates the five freedoms. Veterinary Record 131, 357FAWC (2006) The Farm Animal Welfare Council Strategic Plan 2006-2010. FAWC, LondonFAWL (2008) Farm Assured Welsh Livestock web site - www.fawl.co.uk/fawlinfopages/FAWLInfo.htm, November

2008FSA (2007a) Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the reduction of mycotoxins in UK cereals. Food Standards

Agency FSA/1170/0507.FSA (2007b) The UK Code of Good Storage Practice to Reduce Ochratoxin A in Cereals. Food Standards

Agency, February 2007.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

http://www.fawl.co.uk/fawlinfopages/FAWLInfo.htm

http://www.bitc.org.uk/resources/case_studies/jordans_conservation.html

http://www.redtractor.org.uk/

GCGP (2007a) Conservation Grade Farming Protocol. Guild of Conservation Grade Producers LtdGCGP (2007b) Conservation Grade Farming Training Manual. Guild of Conservation Grade Producers LtdGenesis (2007a) Beef and Sheep Standards 2007/08. Genesis QA Scheme Description and Regulations SF.063

iss 02. Genesis Quality Assurance LimitedGenesis (2007b) Pig Standards 2007/08. Genesis QA Scheme Description and Regulations SF.063 iss 02.

Genesis Quality Assurance LimitedGenesis (2007c) Arable and Sugar Beet Standards 2007/08. Genesis QA Scheme Description and Regulations

SF.063 iss 02. Genesis Quality Assurance LimitedGenesis (2008) Genesis QA web site - www.genesisqa.com/consumers-info.asp, November 2008GlobalGap (2007a) Integrated Farm Assurance Control Points and Compliance Criteria. All Farm Base. English

Version V3.0-2_Sep07 Valid from 30 September 2007GlobalGap (2007b) Integrated Farm Assurance Control Points and Compliance Criteria. All Livestock Base.

English Version V3.0-2_Sep07 Valid from 30 September 2007GlobalGap (2007c) Integrated Farm Assurance Control Points and Compliance Criteria. Cattle & Sheep. English

Version V3.0-1 Sep07 Valid from 30 September 2007GlobalGap (2007d) Integrated Farm Assurance Control Points and Compliance Criteria. Combinable Crops.

English Version V3.0-2 Sep07 Valid from 30 September 2007GlobalGap (2007e) Control Points and Compliance Criteria Integrated Farm Assurance. Crops Base. English

Version V3.0-2_Sep07 Valid from 30 September 2007GlobalGap (2007f) Integrated Farm Assurance Control Points and Compliance Criteria. Dairy. English Version

V3.0-1 Sep07 Valid from 30 September 2007GlobalGap (2007g) Integrated Farm Assurance Control Points and Compliance Criteria. Fruit and Vegetables.

English Version V3.0-2 Sep07 Valid from 30 September 2007GlobalGap (2007h) Integrated Farm Assurance Control Points and Compliance Criteria. Pig. English Version

V3.0-2 Sep 07 Valid from 30 September 2007GlobalGap (2007i) Integrated Farm Assurance Control Points and Compliance Criteria. Poultry. English Version

V3.0-2_Sep07 Valid from 30 September 2007GlobalGap (2008) GLOBALGAP web site - www.globalgap.org, November 2008LEAF (2007) LEAF Marque Global Standard 2008. Linking Environment And Farming.LEAF (2008) LEAF web site - www.leafuk.org/leafuk/consumers/difference.aspx, November 2008Lewis, K. A., Newbold, M. J., Hall, A. M. and Broom, C. E. (1997a). An eco-rating system for optimising pesticide

use at farm level: Part 1 theory and development. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 68, 275-280Lewis, K. A., Newbold, M. J. and Broom, C. E. (1997b). An eco-rating system for optimising pesticide use at farm

level: Part 2 evaluation, examples and piloting. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 68, 281-289Lewis, K. A. and Bardon, K. S. (1998) A computer based informal environmental management system for

agriculture. Journal of Environmental Modelling and Software, 13, 123-127.Lewis, K. A., Tzilivakis, J., Green, A., Warner, D. and Coles, A. (2008) Farm assurance schemes: can they

improve farming standards? British Food Journal 110(11), 1088-1105LMC (2003) FQAS Standard. Northern Ireland Beef and Lamb Farm Quality Assurance Scheme The Livestock

and Meat Commission for Northern Ireland. April 2003 editionNatural England (2006) Natural England Strategic Direction 2006 – 2009. English Nature, Rural Development

Service, The Countryside Agency. Peterborough.Natural England (2008) Entry Level Stewardship Handbook. Second Edition - October 2008. Natural England,

NE106Newbold, M.J., Lewis, K.A., Tzilivakis, J., Finch, J., Kaho, T., Skinner, J.A. and Bardon, K.S. (1997). The options

for informal environmental management: The agricultural industry highlighted. Eco-Management and Auditing, 4(1), 22-27

NIFQA (2008) Northern Ireland Beef and Lamb Farm Quality Assurance web site - www.lovebeefandlamb.com/quality-guarantee/index.php, November 2008

Parry, H., Ramwell, C., Bishop, J., Cuthbertson, A., Boatman, N., Gaskell, P., Dwyer, J., Mills, J. and Ingram, J. (2006) OBS 03: Quantitative approaches to assessment of farm level changes and implications for the environment. Final report, October 2006, Central Science Laboratory, York and Countryside and Community Research Unit, University of Gloucestershire. Agricultural Change & Environment Observatory Programme

PCFFF (2002) Farming and Food, A sustainable future. Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food (PCFFF). January 2002.

PEBLDS (2005). The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. Council for the PAN-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy, Geneva and Strasbourg

PEBLDS (2003). The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. Accessed via http://www.strategyguide.org/fulltext.html

QMS (2007a) Cattle & Sheep Standards. Quality Meat Scotland. Issue 7. Updated September 2007QMS (2007b) Pig Standards. Quality Meat Scotland. Issue 6. Updated April 2007QMS (2007c) Feed Standards. Quality Meat Scotland. Issue 10. Updated July 2007QMS (2007d) Haulage Standards. Quality Meat Scotland. Issue 6. Updated July 2007QMS (2008) Quality Meat Scotland web site - www.qmscotland.co.uk/members/standards/cattle-and-sheep.html,

November 2008

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

http://www.qmscotland.co.uk/members/standards/cattle-and-sheep.html

http://www.strategyguide.org/fulltext.html

http://www.lovebeefandlamb.com/quality-guarantee/index.php

http://www.leafuk.org/leafuk/consumers/difference.aspx

http://www.globalgap.org/

http://www.genesisqa.com/consumers-info.asp

QWFC (2008) Farm Assured Welsh Livestock. Beef & Lamb Scheme. Producer Manual Quality Welsh Food Certification Ltd. September 2008

SAI (2001) Social Accountability 8000. International Standard. Social Accountability InternationalTesco (2007) Tescos Nature's Choice Technical Guidelines 07. v02 March 2007. Tesco Stores Ltd.Tesco (2006) Tescos Nature's Choice Protocol and Code of Practice. November 2006 Issue 2. Tesco Stores Ltd.Tesco (2008a) Tesco web site - www.tescofarming.com, November 2008Tzilivakis J. and Lewis, K. A. (2007) The Agricultural Document Library (ADLib) and its applications. Proceedings

of the European Federation for IT in Agriculture (EFITA) conference 2-5 July 2007, GlasgowTzilivakis, J., Lewis K. A., Warner, D. J., Green. A. and Coles A. J. C. (2007) A preliminary review of integrated

farming standards and food eco-labelling. Report prepared by Agriculture and Environment Research Unit (AERU), University of Hertfordshire for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for project IF0131.

Tzilivakis, J., Lewis K. A., Warner, D. J., Green. A. and Coles A. J. C. (2009) A content analysis of assurance scheme standards. Report prepared by Agriculture and Environment Research Unit (AERU), University of Hertfordshire for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for project IF0131. March 2009.

Webster , J. (1995) Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden. Blackwell, Oxford, 273pp.

AppendicesAppendix A. Desirable outcomes (separate document)

Appendix B. Bibliography (separate document)

Appendix C. Detailed outcome assessment results: Outcome groups (separate document)

Appendix D. Detailed outcome assessment results: Individual outcomes (separate document)

References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59

http://www.tescofarming.com/

Lewis, K. A., Tzilivakis, J., Green, A., Warner, D. and Coles, A. (2008) Farm assurance schemes: can they improve farming standards? British Food Journal 110 (11), 1088-1105.

Lewis, K. A., Tzilivakis, J., Green, A. and Warner, D.J. (XXXX) The contribution of UK farm assurance schemes towards desirable environmental policy outcomes. Submitted to International Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, October 2009.

Tzilivakis, J., Lewis, K. A., Green, A. and Warner, D.J. (XXXX) A novel technique for identifying environmental outcomes from agricultural practices. Submitted to Environmental Impact Assessment Review, October 2009.

Lewis, K. A., Tzilivakis, J., Green, A. and Warner, D.J. (XXXX) The contribution of UK farm assurance schemes towards sustainable agriculture policy. In preparation, to be submitted to International Journal of Sustainable Agriculture.

Tzilivakis, J., Lewis, K. A., Green, A. and Warner, D.J. (XXXX) Contribution of whole farm and targeted initiatives to sustainable agriculture policy. Application of a novel technique for identifying environmental outcomes from agricultural practices. Planned, appropriate journal to be identified.

Activity Effect Outcome (AEO) Database: http://www.herts.ac.uk/aeru/projects/burdens/database/

Outcomes from Agricultural Systems (OASys) prototype Environmental Management System: http://www.adlib.ac.uk/oasys/

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 59



general enquiries on this form should be made...

Documents