Measuring progress in agricultural sustainability to support policy-making

Dillon, Emma; Hennessy, Thia; Buckley, Cathal; Donnellan, Trevor; Hanrahan, Kevin; Moran, Brian; Ryan, Mary

doi:10.1080/14735903.2015.1012413

Cited by 57 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While many of these studies focus on a specifi c extension service such as farmer discussion groups (Hennessy and Heanue, 2012;Bogue, 2014) and/or the impact of extension use versus no extension use (Cawley et al, 2015;Dillon et al, 2016), in general, little attention has been given to the range of extension service on offer, the sort of information that is requested and the level of engagement between the farmer and the extension provider. To the best of our knowledge, this is most likely due to the limited availability of data on these topics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Going beyond FADN: The use of additional data to gain insights into extension service use across European Union Member States

Brennan¹,

Ryan²,

Cullen³

et al. 2016

Stud. Agr. Econ.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the use of extension services by farm households across eight European Union (EU) Member States, exploring the type of extension service engaged with, the degree of engagement and the type of information sought. The impact of extension on economic, environmental and social sustainability is also considered. European data utilised are those collected from a pilot sample of 820 households in 2015/2016 as part of the EU Framework 7 project FLINT, from which the Irish results are incorporated further with Irish Farm Accountancy Data Network data. The results outline the key contrasts across the countries investigated and suggest that the degree to which households engage with extension services is primarily infl uenced by national policies. In addition, this analysis indicates that the extent of this engagement has implications for sustainability at the farm level. The fi nal conclusions and policy recommendations in this paper support the development of a large-scale version of the FLINT pilot survey.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Going beyond FADN: The use of additional data to gain insights into extension service use across European Union Member States

Brennan¹,

Ryan²,

Cullen³

et al. 2016

Stud. Agr. Econ.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such activities could be both agricultural in nature (e.g. contract farming), or non-agricultural in nature (see articles, 25,32,36). All but one ('dependence on subsidies') of these indicators were considered to be positive for SI, with article 46 stating that, "…increasing income for farmers is also essential to purchase food, education, medicine and other goods and services essential for their livelihoods and development."…”

Section: Resource Users Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All but one ('dependence on subsidies') of these indicators were considered to be positive for SI, with article 46 stating that, "…increasing income for farmers is also essential to purchase food, education, medicine and other goods and services essential for their livelihoods and development." (The Montpellier Panel, 2013: 11) Dillon et al (2015) have proposed that a household may be considered vulnerable if the farm business is not viable, and none of the occupants are engaged in off-farm employment. Chikowo et al (2014) state that sufficient income is imperative for farmers to access new technologies, undertake better management of the farm, and become more productive and economically, and potentially, environmentally, sustainable.…”

Section: Resource Users Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable intensification – “oxymoron” or “third-way”? A systematic review

Mahon

Crute

Simmons

et al. 2017

Ecological Indicators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable Intensification (SI) is a term that has been advanced to capture a concept that some consider as the 'third paradigm' for global agricultural development. However, the term has become subject to intense debates as well as scepticism and confusion regarding its meaning and the characteristics of production systems that could indicate SI (defined as "indicators"). This has resulted in a proliferation of literature. We have conducted a systematic review of a sample of this literature analysing the most commonly suggested indicators of SI in order to investigate the extent to which the critiques of SI are valid in their viewpoints that SI is an oxymoron, underpinned by a productivist agenda, and to identify the critical issues in the development of a comprehensive and unambiguous set of SI indicators. From 633 articles identified by a search of relevant databases, a sample of 75 articles were selected and analysed using the NVIVO™ software. The results were organised according to a Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) framework comprising seven sub-systems or components − resource system, resource units, governance system, resource users, interactions, outcomes, and environment. A total of 218 indicators (both positive and negative) were identified. Most of these indicators focused on the 'outcomes' of agricultural systems with the majority being related to agricultural production. Few indicators were identified as relating to the economic and societal dimensions of food systems. Whilst this potentially suggested a productivist bias in the current interpretation of SI it was difficult to draw a black and white conclusion, since for the other system components, the majority of the indicators suggested appeared to take a more holistic point-of-view and emphasised both productivity and sustainability of agricultural systems. Our analysis suggests that a key reason why SI may be viewed with scepticism is a lack of specificity and elucidation of the rationale, scale, and farm type for which SI is proposed. Moreover, a number of the indicators were so loosely defined that the interventions they imply could be enacted without due consideration of the social impacts of their adoption. We conclude that there is need to develop SI indicators according to specific farming types and scales and also with more consideration of the social and political dimensions of food systems in order to promote a constructive dialogue around the concept of SI to take place. Unless the concept of SI is described and measured in such a holistic and inclusive manner, it is unlikely to be accepted as a valid descriptor of sought-after agricultural practices by players in the Third Sector.

show abstract

“…Frater and Franks, 2013;Barnes and Thomson, 2014). In Ireland, the industry-developed strategies for the agri-food sector -Food Harvest 2020 (DAFF, 2010) and Food Wise (DAFM, 2015) -set ambitious agricultural expansion targets for the dairy sector in particular (Dillon et al, 2015). Many approaches to accomplishing the dual challenge of increasing agricultural production while reducing its environmental impact are based on increasing the efficiency of agricultural production relative to both resource use and the unintended outcomes of use such as water pollution, biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Bennett et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing farm-level sustainability indicators for Ireland using the Teagasc National Farm Survey

Ryan¹,

Hennessy²,

Buckley³

et al. 2016

Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of an expanding, export-dependent agri-food sector, indicators of sustainable development and intensification are necessary to measure, assess and verify the comparative advantage afforded by Ireland's natural pastoral-based food production systems. Such indicators are also necessary to ensure that we produce more food with less adverse impacts on the Irish environment, climate and society. This article outlines the development of farm-level indicators that reflect the multifaceted nature of sustainability, which is encompassed in economic, environmental and social indicators. The role of innovation in farm sustainability was also examined. A comparison of indicators across Irish farm systems showed that dairy farms, followed by tillage farms, tended to be the most economically and socially sustainable farm systems. In relation to greenhouse gas emissions in particular, the top-performing dairy farms, in an economic sense, also tended to be the best-performing farms from an environmental sustainability perspective. This trend was also evident in relation to the adoption of innovative practices on farm, which was found to be strongly correlated with economic performance.

show abstract

Measuring progress in agricultural sustainability to support policy-making

Cited by 57 publications

References 10 publications

Going beyond FADN: The use of additional data to gain insights into extension service use across European Union Member States

Going beyond FADN: The use of additional data to gain insights into extension service use across European Union Member States

Sustainable intensification – “oxymoron” or “third-way”? A systematic review

Developing farm-level sustainability indicators for Ireland using the Teagasc National Farm Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About