Input Output Accounting systems (IOAs) can be used to identify farming practices which are not 'environmentally neutral' and thus unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. In an EU sponsored project, European countries were surveyed and over 50 farm level IOAs identified. The subjects covered by the IOAs included nutrients, pesticides, energy, soil/habitat, conservation, wastes (e.g. packaging and tyres) and other items such as veterinary products. Nearly half the IOAs covered more than one subject and nutrient budgets were the most commonly included (91% of the IOAs studied). Looking at the 30 single subject systems, most (26) were nutrients with only three pesticide and one energy based system. In total 50 systems covered nutrients. Overall, where specified, nutrient budgets covered nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) in 13 cases, N and P in 12 cases, N only in nine and P only in four cases. The most common indicators for nutrient budgets were calculation of a balance followed by nitrate leached. The method by which indicators were evaluated and presented to farmers varied. Farming sectors were not equally represented with systems for the arable, dairy and pig sectors the most common. Farmers received a detailed interpretation of their results in two thirds of the systems, most commonly related to official limits or targets. Most of the systems were developed to reduce adverse environmental impacts and 65% of the systems were considered by the respondents to have had a positive environmental impact by reducing surpluses or improving waste disposal. Use of five of the systems could lead to a marketing advantage via certified produce with a recognised quality label. Where factual evidence as to effectiveness was available, the benefits varied between subject types (nutrients, energy and pesticides) and between sectors. Farmers' responses to the systems were generally positive and they appear to be a useful way of raising awareness of environmental problems. However, economic issues need to be considered, if the costs to the farmer outweigh the benefits, uptake will not be sustained. The type and nature of the interpretation is also important as the most successful IOAs in terms of continued use and interest appeared to be those where there was regular technical input from an adviser. Overall IOAs could offer a useful tool for voluntary improvement in agri-environmental performance on topics that are not already strongly regulated. But more studies are needed to ensure that farmers in reality change their behaviour and to develop the use of reference values. #

Green accounts or input-output accounting systems (IOA) have been developed in countries with intensive agricultural production to facilitate voluntary improvements in farm environmental performance. There is a need for an overview of indicators used and a review of results and experiences reported. Ten IOA systems covering the topics of the farm's use of nutrients, pesticides and energy were selected from a survey of 55 systems and compared in this paper. The approaches and indicators used vary from systems based on good agricultural practices (GAP) to accounts based systems that use physical input-output units. Many IOA systems use farm gate nutrient balances, pesticide use per hectare and energy use per kilogram product. These indicators are easy to calculate but the resulting value needs separate interpretation for the farmer. Other systems include modeled emissions and rate the yearly farm results using closed scales, which allows for easy interpretation but builds on implicit normative assumptions of best practices. Participating farmers were most often reported to be motivated for the use of IOA but empirical evidence of improved environmental farm performance was scarce. IOA systems should be linked with production planning tools used by the advisory services. Farmers and advisors needs better reference values to evaluate the indicator levels (environmental performance) on the individual farm possibly based on analysis of a larger number of farms. The statistical properties of IOA indicators need to be researched regarding: (1) the relation between changed management practice and changes in indicator values on a given farm over a period of time; (2) the relative importance of systematic versus coincidental differences in environmental performance of a set of farms. It is concluded that IOA systems could become effective tools for agri-environmental improvement of European farms given further development and standardization.

Cross‐compliance has increasingly been used to integrate environmental considerations into the CAP. From 2005 it became compulsory for all Member States to ensure that recipients of Single Farm Payments adhered to Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs), stemming from 19 EU regulations and directives, and kept their whole agricultural holding in ‘Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition’ (GAEC), to be defined by Member States or regional authorities. The potential for cross‐compliance to enhance implementation of EU environmental legislation and reach a large area of farmland seems good, although there are some questions remaining over whether it will reach the agricultural land at most risk of environmental damage or with the highest nature value. In addition, farmers could react in several ways to exempt themselves or some area of their holding from cross‐compliance conditions. Member States or regional authorities have taken a variety of approaches to setting cross‐compliance standards, some of which seem minimal and vague. There is scope for the SMRs and GAEC to cover more environmental issues. Better guidance at EU level and increased communication could enhance implementation of cross‐compliance. Self‐audits, co‐operation with private assurance schemes or other methods of monitoring should be explored to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative efforts.