Evaluating the Sustainable Intensification of arable farms

Abstract

Sustainable Intensification (SI) of agriculture has recently received widespread political attention, in both the UK and internationally. The concept recognises the need to simultaneously raise yields, increase input use efficiency and reduce the negative environmental impacts of farming systems to secure future food production and to sustainably use the limited resources for agriculture. The objective of this paper is to outline a policy-making tool to assess SI at a farm level. Based on the method introduced by Kuosmanen and Kortelainen (2005), we use an adapted Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to consider the substitution possibilities between economic value and environmental pressures generated by farming systems in an aggregated index of Eco-Efficiency. Farm level data, specifically General Cropping Farms (GCFs) from the East Anglian River Basin Catchment (EARBC), UK were used as the basis for this analysis. The assignment of weights to environmental pressures through linear programming techniques, when optimising the relative Eco-Efficiency score, allows the identification of appropriate production technologies and practices (integrating pest management, conservation farming, precision agriculture, etc.) for each farm and therefore indicates specific improvements that can be undertaken towards SI. Results are used to suggest strategies for the integration of farming practices and environmental policies in the framework of SI of agriculture. Paths for improving the index of Eco-Efficiency and therefore reducing environmental pressures are also outlined.

Potential and limits of land and soil for sustainable intensification of European agriculture

“…Consequently, small and medium sized farms in a heterogeneous landscape were not considered in the land survey. Such small and especially medium sized farms can produce more eco-efficient than large sized farms (Gadanakis et al, 2015) and may play an important role for the future food security in Europe.…”

“…There is a strong positive correlation between technical inefficiency, eco-inefficiency and wrong agricultural management with an overuse of production inputs (Gadanakis et al, 2015). Management decisions on SI must take into account the full range of other environmental considerations and the specific local factors, including the impacts on and the availability of water, GHG emissions, biodiversity and landscape (Blum and Nortcliff, 2013).…”

Environmental efficiency of energy, materials, and emissions

“…After Tyteca (1996), the JEM has published at least 11 papers examining environmental performance using usual DEA/FDH at firm or farm level, which is likely to have more indistinguishable outliers than at country or municipality level. Among them, 5 studies refer to and deal with outliers (or make sure there is no outlier) of their dataset (Frija et al, 2011;Gadanakis et al, 2015;Lundgren et al, 2013;Picazo-Tadeo and Prior, 2009;Van Meensel et al, 2010); 1 study only refers to the problem of outlier (Barnes, 2006); 5 studies do not refer to outliers (Barnes et al, 2009;Chen et al, 2012;De Koeijer et al, 2002;Oude Lansink and Bezlepkin, 2003;Picazo-Tadeo et al, 2011). As Tyteca mentions, the best practice frontier is not considerably suited for the value of the indicator in itself but rather as a means to rank DMUs; therefore, some may justify estimation with potential super-efficient outliers because ranking DMU itself is important as a measure to improve environmental efficiency in the actual business situation.…”

Quantifying ambivalence towards sustainable intensification: an exploration of the UK public’s values

“…There is no agreed definition of SI, but it commonly centres on sustainably producing food given a fixed, or declining, resource base. A range of studies has argued that the pursuit of SI will lead to trade-offs in economic, ecological and social dimensions of food production and consumption (Godfrey et al 2010;Pretty et al 2011;Conway 2011;Barnes 2012;Franks 2014;Barnes and Thomson 2014;McDonagh 2015;Godfray and Garnett 2014;Gadanakis et al 2015). Accordingly, a number of authors have recognised that solutions badged as SI offer an emotive arena to debate future farming practices and food consumption pathways (Marsden 2010;Misselhorn et al 2012;Garnett et al 2013;Bos et al 2013;Scarpellini et al 2013).…”