Comments about the proposed criteria and parameters

R. Rossi, D. Nota Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 53–64 57 Table 3 Tentative evaluation of farm-landscape performance of two organic farms as compared to their non-organically managed surroundings a Criteria and parameters b La Selva La Selva Poggio Antico P. Antico 3. Economy farm surroundings farm surroundings landscape c landscape c landscape c landscape c Subsistence on material level welfare ++? +? +? +? Family survival cash incomeyear—minimum income of region ++ +? + +? year—minimum income of regionyear—year’s full labour Return of invested capital ++? ? +? ? Own capital as from total farm investment ++? ? +? ? Of farm income paid to banks ? ? ? ? Number of people earning income per 100 ha of the farm surface 22 + ? +? ? Agricultural income per 100 ha 22 ++ +? + +? Targetobjective of the farm’s income who takes the profitcarries The losses ? ? ? ? Direct eu-type of incomes 23 +? ? +? ? Unpaid income food, fuel, housing, ... + ? + ? Overflow of urbanindustrial profits to rural-area-support preferred over vice versa ? ? ? ? Green economy 24 ? ? ? ? Social costs unpaid for by the farmer should be low ? ? ? ? Polluter payments farmer payed, can help to compensate for Social costs ? ? ? ? Social benefits unpaid for by the society; to be rewarded by direct payments ? ? ? ? under conditions preventing contra-productivitymisuse Economic base in agriculture andor forestry +? ? +? ? Financial contribution to regional econo‘my buying and selling commodities and services +? +? +? +? Costs invested to make profit =agric. income; aim for cost-efficiency, ? ? ? ? to be specified per region soil pricequality, infrastructure, etc. Income diversification on farm elevation, processing, adding value on the farm +? ? +? ? can increase profitability Number of people living on the farm and earning money in the region more +? ? +? ? people living in the rural area a Refers to main aspects of the Economy using the 1995 version of the Table. b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3. c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive; ± neutralintermediate; − negative; − − very negative; subtotal per criterium, averaged over the parameters of that criterium. valley-bottoms. Croplands here are mixed to wood- land and shrubland as in Poggio Antico farm, but no livestock is raised. Furthermore, the mechanization is high and soil conservation practices are almost ab- sent. The use of chemical fertilization and pesticides is moderate on the hills and high in the valley-bottoms.

3. Comments about the proposed criteria and parameters

First, a general remark regarding the parameters of the list as used can be made: it seems necessary to find more practical parameters; several still appear to be rather theoretical and difficult to apply, but probably this opinion is partly due to the fact that in our panel the disciplinary competences were incomplete. Apart from this general comment, here follows a list of more specific remarks the numbers refer to Tables 1–6: 1. For ‘soil erosion’, as for other criteria, it is better to use parameters reflecting effects rather than pa- rameters reflecting practices, as those proposed in the third version of the list shelter belts, contour ploughing, winter cover. Some practices cannot always be seen as generally ‘good’ practices, for example ‘contour ploughing’: in certain circum- stances, like in sloping heavy soils, the tillage has to be done along the slope to help the aeration; in this case the conservation practices are connected to optimal slope-length and ground cover. For this reason, we suggest the use of parameters reflect- 58 R. Rossi, D. Nota Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 53–64 Table 4 Tentative evaluation of farm-landscape performance of two organic farms as compared to their non-organically managed surroundings a Criteria and parameters b La Selva La Selva Poggio landscape P. Antico 4. Sociology farm surroundings Antico surroundings landscape c landscape c farm c landscape c Well-being of people + ? ++ ? changes in number of people living on the farm’s land 100 ha 22 + ? ++ ? farmer’s education ++ ? ++ ? farms’ successors ? ? ? ? followers of the farms example + ? + ? professional excursions to the farm + ? + ? Local participation and responsibility ±? ? +? ? membership regional councils ? ? ? ? idem farmers organisations cooperatives ? ? ++ ? organising outlets professional training 25 + ? ++ ? off-farm income =working in the region ? ? ? ? social support for the farm labour, finances, other ± ? + ? cooperation with NGOs nature protection, environment, others ? ? ? ? consumerparticipation groups +? ? +? ? Accessibility of the landscape +? +? ++? +? general excursions to the farm consumers, locals, NGOs + ? + ? roads through the land foothpaths ± ? + ? hunting, fishing, jogging, camping ao + +? ++ +? self-picking ± ? ±? ? on-farm sales ++ ? ++ ? Awareness raising +? ? ++ ? Questions to the management on: the natural environment and natural resources, lifecycles + ? ++ ? and ecological webbing the social environment links with consumers, urbans, ++ ? + ? tourists, colleagues, etc., up to global scale the cultural environment perceptions of aesthetics, paradigms, religions +? ? ++ ? the willingness to act accepting responsibilities ++? ? ++ ? a Refers to main aspects of the Sociology using the 1995 version of the Table. b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3. c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive; ± neutralintermediate; − negative; − − very negative; subtotal per criterium, averaged over the parameters of that criterium. ing effects which can be surveyed very easily: ‘ac- tual erosion traces on the farm rills and gullies, soil deposition in lower parts of fields’, ‘silting up of rivers and canals on-site and off-site’ and ‘floodings off-site’, even if the last one does not reflect only soil erosion. 2. ‘Soil erosion’ is not the only form of ‘soil degra- dation’. We suggest to introduce this last item too and its most relevant parameters: ‘loss of structure of topsoil increase of bulk density; crust forma- tion’ and ‘soil salinity soil water conductivity’. In some cases, other types of degradation are rel- evant besides those proposed here. 3. For ‘water conservation’ it is useful to distin- guish between the conditions of ground water and those of surface water. As it has been remarked above, the proposed parameters ‘number of cattle unitsha’ and ‘winter cover’ do not reflect effects. 4. Beside other parameters, it seems useful to also maintain more generic parameters like ‘water quality’ because it is not always possible to use the more specific ones. 5. In many dry coastal areas ‘salinity’ and ‘saliniza- tion of ground water’ are very important issues. 6. For the reason explained in point 4, it seems useful to rescue the parameters ‘nitrate levels in surface water’ and ‘phosphate levels in the water’, which were included in former versions of the list. 7. For the criterium ‘clean air conservation’, in- stead of the proposed parameter ‘lichens’, which R. Rossi, D. Nota Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 53–64 59 Table 5 Tentative evaluation of farm-landscape performance of two organic farms as compared to their non-organically managed surroundings a Criteria and parameters b La Selva La Selva Poggio Antico P. Antico 5. Psychology farm surrounding farm surroundings landscape c landscape c landscape c landscape c Aesthetics Visual elements mind the exposure, weather, daytime, season + − − ++ ++ Size, context and structure + − − ++ ++ Shape and texture + − − ++ ++ Light and colours + − ++ ++ Contrasts in the above + − − ++ ++ Variation, chaos and order in the above ++ − − ++ ++ Smells sort of smells, ranging between ++ +? ++ ++? ‘Pure-well balanced-smells’ like flowers, herbs, hay, straw, soil, + ±? ++ + litter, humus, farm-yard-manure ‘Stinking’-sharp, penetrating-like: intensive animal production, ++ ++? ++ ++? liquid manure, ammonia, sulphur-dioxide, exhaust fumes Smells strength and continuity of smells, ranging between ++ ++? ++ ++? Temporal gusts 25 ? ? ? ? Continuous stress ++ ++? ++ ++? Sounds sort of sounds, ranging between + ± ++ + ‘Silence’: livestock, birds, wind in trees and crops, water streams, waves + ±? ++ + ‘Noise’: industry, traffic, windmills + +? ++ + Sounds strength and continuity of the sounds, ranging between ++ ++? ++ ++? Temporal gusts 26 ? ? ? ? Continuous stress ++ ++? ++ ++? Subjective identity + − −? ++ +? Impression of ‘genius loci’ + − − ++ + Legibilityreadabilityrecognisability common history of local nature and culture ± − −? ++ ++? Inspiration for personal involvementparticipation ++ − −? ++ +? Optionsaccessibility for participation + ? + ? Actual participation see also sociology: local participation and responsibility + ? + ? a Refers to main aspects of the Psychology using the 1995 version of the Table. b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3. c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive; ± neutralintermediate; − negative; − −very negative; subtotal per criterium, averaged over the parameters of that criterium. was meant to refer to lichens sensible to air pol- lution, we would prefer ‘presence of indicator lichens andor plant species’; this parameter, any- how, can be used only when data are available because indicators of specific pollutants are mon- itored. 8. Especially in the Mediterranean regions, wild-fires have very important impacts on the ecology and the economy of farm-landscapes. We suggest the introduction of the criterium ‘wild-fire preven- tion’ and of the parameters ‘fire-resistant species’ and adoption of fire-control practices’. 9. For the criterium ‘foodfiber sufficiency and quality’, we think it is important to add the parameter ‘taste’ to the proposed ‘absence of health-stressing additives’: it is not enough for a product to be healthy, it should to be tasty too. Not always a genuine food is also a good one apart from preconceived opinions 10. In the concerted action the criterium ‘carrying ca- pacity’ has a wider meaning: the maximum level whereto a natural system can produce without being destroyed. We suggest the introduction of the parameters ‘ratio annual crops areapolyannual crops area’ and ‘ratio nitrogen input areaarable area’ which are based on the principle that consid- ers polyannual fodder crops and nitrogen-fixing crops as influencing positively soil fertility. 11. Even if the ‘carrying capacity of pastures’ is a re- stricted issue in comparison with the wider mean- ing given here to ‘carrying capacity’, it seems use- ful to give room to it somewhere in the list and 60 R. Rossi, D. Nota Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 53–64 Table 6 Tentative evaluation of farm-landscape performance of two organic farms as compared to their non-organically managed surroundings a Criteria and parameters b La Selva La Selva Poggio P. Antico 6. Physiognomy and cultural geography farm surroundings Antico farm surroundings landscape c landscape c landscape c landscape c Objective identity + ±? ++ + Identity of the farm in the landscape + − − ++ + Geoecological elements ++ − − ++ + Historical elements − − ++ ++? Typical elements ++ − − ++ + Identity of the landscape in the region 27 + + + + Geoecological elements ++ ++ ++ ++ Historical elements − − + + Typical elements + + + + Landscape structure Diversity of landscape elements, landscape patterns, land-units and + − − ++ + landscape types coinciding with the vertical coherence between land use and the a biotic factors Recognisability of coherence between landscape components +? − − ++? +? Functional relationships + − − ++ +? Historical relationships − − − + +? Spatial relationships + −? ++ +? Horizontal relationships ++ − −? ++ ++? Vertical relationships ± − −? + ±? Temporal relationships ++? ? ++ ? Use of local building material ± ±? + +? Historic continuity ± − −? ++ +? Persistent structures ± − −? ++ ++? Persistent elements ± ±? ++ +? Persistent patterns ± − −? + +? a Refers to main aspects of the Physiognomy and Cultural geography using the 1995 version of the Table. b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3. c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive; ± neutralintermediate; − negative; − −very negative; subtotal per criterium, averaged over the parameters of that criterium. we suggest to maintain the parameter ‘reproduc- tion of vegetationland unit indicator species for overgrazing and undergrazing’. 12. For the criterium ‘resource efficiency’, it seems useful to rescue the possibility to use ‘indicator species’ for the parameter ‘nutrient balance on field level’, when it is possible. 13. Regarding the criterium ‘biodiversity’, even if the identification of ‘minimal standards’ for ‘species diversity per biotope’ and for ‘biotopes per farm- type’ is correct, it does not seem to be very viable in practice because of the very great variability of situations. 14. To help in overcoming what is remarked above, we suggest to rescue the parameters ‘selected taxa land use-type dependent’ and ‘number’ of biotopes. 15. It is not clear how to practically use the cri- teriumparameter ‘ecosystems, with minimal functioning’. 16. Regarding the criterium ‘ecological coherence in time, cyclical coherence’, the meaning of the pa- rameter ‘daytimeseasonyear ‘s age compli- ancy’ proposed in the former list is not completely clear: we suggest to use simply ‘season compli- ancy’. 17. For the same criterium, it is not clear how to prac- tically use the parameters ‘appropriate decompo- sition is organized’ and ‘appropriate succession is organized’. 18. For the criterium ‘eco-regulation’, we suggest the parameter ‘ecological pest and decease control’ to point out the degree of involvement and success of the farmer. R. Rossi, D. Nota Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 53–64 61 Table 7 Final rating of the farm-landscape performances of the landscapes of the two organic farms and their non-organically managed surrounding landscapes a Criteria La Selva La Selva Poggio P. Antico farm surroundings Antico farm surroundings landscape b landscape b landscape b landscape b 1. Environment ++ −? ++ −? Clean environment + − + −? fertile Soil conservation ++ − − ++ − −? clean Water conservation ±? −? +? ±? unpolluted Air conservation ++ −? ++ ±? Wild-fire prevention ± ±? Foodfiber sufficiency on farm or local level and quality ++ ±? ++ +? Carrying capacity ++ − − ++ − −? Resource efficiency ++? − −? ++? − −? Site adapted production system ++ −? ++ −? 2. Ecology + − − ++ ±? Biodiversity: + − −? ++ +? Speciesflorafauna, with minimal population ? ? ? ? Biotopes + − −? ++ +? Ecosystems, with minimal functioning 15 ? ? ? ? Ecological coherence: +? − −? ++? ±? On site, vertical coherence ? ? ? ? In the landscape, horizontal coherence + − −? ++ +? In time, cyclical coherences +? −? +? +? Eco-regulation ++ − −? ++ −? Animal welfare husbandry + ++ 3. Economy ++? +? +? +? Subsistence on material level welfare ++? +? +? +? Green economy ? ? ? ? Economic base in agriculture andor forestry +? ? +? + 4. Sociology +? +? ++? +? Well-being of people + ? ++ ? Local participation and responsibility ±? ? +? ? Accessibility of the landscape +? +? ++? +? Awareness raising +? ? ++ ? 5. Psychology + − ++ ++? Aesthetics Visual elements + − − ++ ++ Smells ++ +? ++ ++? Sounds ++ +? ++ ++? Subjective identity + − −? ++ +? 6. Physiognomy cultural geography + − −? ++ +? Objective identity + ±? ++ + Landscape structure + − − ++ + Recognisability of coherence between landscape components +? − − ++? +? Historic continuity ± − −? ++? +? Total evaluation + −? ++ +? a The averaged scorings per criterium are presented here for the Tables 1–6, and averaged for all the criteria of the six Tables under ‘Total evaluation’ in the bottom row. This shows the indication that each organic farm performs more sustainably than in the non-organic farming in its surrounding. It also indicates that they may perform more sustainable independent from the actual landscape system. b Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive; ± neutralintermediate; − negative; − − very negative. 62 R. Rossi, D. Nota Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 53–64 Fig. 1. Location of the two checked farms within the Tuscan landscape systems Italy. La Selva farm in subsystem PC6 of the landscape system of Coastal Plains. Poggio Antico farm in subsystem CP5 of the landscape system of Pliocene Hills. 19. The parameter ‘per crop and pest minimal two predators present in the system’, even if it is cor- rect, does not seem very viable in practice. 20. About the criterium ‘animal welfare husbandry’, it is necessary to recall and select the ‘relevant standards’ proposed by NGOs. 21. The parameters ‘shelter against the adverse weather sun, wind, rain’ and ‘room for natural behaviour’ seem to be the most relevant ones for this issue. 22. Regarding the main aspect ‘economy’, many pa- rameters are indicated divided by ‘100 ha’. In many situations the farm size is much smaller: it is better to measure ‘per hectare’. 23. For the criterium ‘subsistence on material level welfare’, it is not clear wether the parameter ‘di- rect EU-type of incomes’ has to be taken in a pos- itive or in a negative way. On the other hand, the issue of the payment of ‘environmental services’ of sustainable agriculture particularly in marginal areas should be seen as one of the final results of the evaluation. 24. It is not clear how to use the parameters proposed for the criterium ‘green economy’. 25. For the criterium ‘local participation and respon- sibility’, in the parameter ‘organising outlets’ we include the organisation of ‘professional training’. 26. For the main aspect ‘psychology’, the meaning of the parameter ‘temporal gusts’ is not clear. 27. For the main aspect ‘physiognomycultural geog- raphy’, it is not completely clear how to use the criteriumparameter ‘identity of the landscape in the region’: in fact in the examples taken for the evaluation, when you have more than one land- scape type in the same region, each one seems to score the same degree of identity.

4. The method for computing values used in the evaluation