Journal of Environmental Management (1998) 52, 15–37

Assessing the of at the planning stage

C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald

This paper reviews the current state of knowledge in defining within the broader sphere of sustainable development. We conclude that agricultural sustainability encompasses biophysical, economic and social factors operating at the field, , watershed, regional and national scales. The immediate challenge is to determine what are sustainable agricultural uses before they are implemented—at the planning stage. The final section outlines a framework within which current land evaluation, environmental impact and strategic environmental assessment approaches to land use planning may be extended, and argues that these approaches must include, from the beginning, sustainability criteria. The framework for integrated sustainability assessment encompasses a mosaic of factors and hierarchy of scales important to agricultural sustainability. The keys to this framework are characterizing sustainability indicator groups and identifying ‘threats’ to sustainable practice. In this way, the framework can be seen as a guide for unsustainability assessment using indicators.  1998 Academic Press Limited

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, land use planning, land evaluation, sustainable de- velopment.

Introduction But what is sustainable agriculture? This paper addresses this question to meet the requirements of development planners who The World Commission on Environment and need to understand, ex ante, the sus- Development (the Brundtland Commission) tainability of alternative land uses. offered the most widely used definition of Many have investigated the requirements sustainable development: of sustainable agriculture and most agree ‘Humanity has the ability to make de- that food sufficiency, environmental stew- velopment sustainable—to ensure that it ardship, socio-economic viability and equity meets the needs of the present generation are important ingredients. But philosophical without compromising the ability of fu- definitions are relatively easy to state. Op- ture generations to meet their own needs. erational definitions and methodologies to The concept of sustainable development does imply limits—not absolute limits but allow them to be applied in agricultural limitations imposed by the present state policy making and planning are much more of technology and social organisation on difficult to determine. environmental resources and by the abil- The most advanced practical approaches to ity of the biosphere to absorb the effects sustainable agriculture focus on the inverse of human activities’ (WCED, 1990, p9). problem—what is unsustainable? This is a Despite the variety of definitions, or per- more manageable proposition because the haps because of it, sustainable development evidence for unsustainability, even if diag- The Department of is now the dominant paradigm guiding de- nosed regrettably late, is clearer. The most Geographical Sciences and Planning, The velopment planning. Given the importance common methodologies use sustainability in- University of Queensland, of agriculture as the ultimate provider of dicators. These are valuable for assessing the St Lucia, 4072, food, fibre and shelter for the human popu- sustainability of agricultural systems but are Queensland, Australia. lation, no sector has a greater role in moving not adequate for the assessment of new land Received 24 July, 1996; towards development that is sustainable. use options without a guiding framework. accepted 27 July, 1997

0301–4797/98/010015+23 $25.00/0/ev970162  1998 Academic Press Limited 16 C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald

The key questions needing answers for Sustainable agriculture agricultural land use planning include ‘what areas can be opened up for agricultural land As with sustainable development, sus- use’ and ‘using what land use practices’? In tainable agriculture is a multi-dimensional proposing a framework for assessing agri- concept, which has led to an array of defin- cultural sustainability at the planning stage, itions. Smit and Smithers (1993) discuss this paper aims to assist planners in an- some interpretations of sustainable agri- swering these questions given the present culture and explain why they differ, con- understanding of sustainability as a multi- cluding that the main cause of confusion dimensional and multiscaled concept. is people’s perception of what constitutes ‘agriculture’ and ‘sustainability’. Sustainable development—the foundation Defining agriculture for sustainable agriculture The attributes of agriculture range from spe- Of the many interpretations of the concept of cific soil-plant interactions at the field level, sustainable development, two seem to pre- to international trading arrangements at the dominate in the literature. These are the global level (Table 1). wealth approach and the mosaic approach. From a biophysical perspective, agri- The wealth approach states that if de- culture is based on plant growth and how velopment is to be sustainable, it must fully different conditions such as soil fertility, cli- appreciate the value of natural and built cap- mate and pests affect it. The focus is on how ital so that the next generation can inherit a various management practices and en- stock of assets no less than those we inherited vironmental conditions affect yield. Much ourselves, thereby maintaining ‘intergener- research on agricultural sustainability has ational equity’ (Pearce et al., 1989). There are addressed the prospects for maintaining or two variations of the wealth approach. improving current levels of biophysical pro- Firstly, weak sustainability, which allows ductivity. man-made and natural capital to be sub- From an economic perspective, agriculture stitutes, and secondly, strong sustainability, is an enterprise at the farm level and an which requires that natural capital assets not important economic sector at the regional decline through time (Pearce et al., 1993). or national level. Economic sustainability is While sustainable development can be ex- considered in terms of the costs of production plained in terms of ‘wealth inheritance’, it is and the prospects for continued economic generally accepted that the concept has dis- viability in the face of changing en- tinct ecological, economic and social com- vironmental, social and economic conditions. ponents (Anon, 1990). This is the mosaic Finally, from a social perspective, agri- approach to sustainable development. The culture is viewed at the macro scale as a mosaic approach breaks sustainable de- producer with a focus on its ability to satisfy velopment into three main components: requirements for food and fibre. Sus- • ecological sustainability which requires tainability is associated with the prospects that development is compatible with the of meeting national and global food and fibre maintenance of ecological processes; needs, quality and security of food supplies, • economic sustainability which requires transfer of technology, and efficiency and that development be economically feas- fairness of food distribution systems. ible; and, Different perspectives depend on the spa- • social sustainability which requires that tial scale being considered. At the field scale, development be socially acceptable. agriculture is mostly about soil conditions, nutrient levels, water availability and plant The mosaic approach to sustainable de- growth. At the farm scale, agriculture means velopment forms the philosophical basis for crop and production, management this discussion on sustainable agriculture. practices and the structure and viability of Assessing the sustainability of agriculture 17

Table 1. Meaning of agriculture by dimension and scale (Smit and Smithers, 1993)

Dimension Scale

Micro Meso Macro

Natural resource base continental water agroecosystems, and land field level soil regional land resources, global fertility, moisture capability climate Crop production regional field yield, production, land global food and management use patterns fibre supplies Economic return farm level regional production costs, economy, value viability, capital of production, trade marketing, outlay distribution policies, politics Rural community farm level tenure, rural economy family size and function, global poverty, involvement, access to food, hunger, equity, communication facilities politics

farm operations. At the regional scale, agri- within the constraints of profitability. The culture is a key element in natural resource second view was ‘sustainability as stew- use and land use patterns. At national and ardship’, defined in terms of controlling en- global scales, agriculture involves trade, vironmental damage. The third view was equity and food sufficiency. ‘sustainability as community’, defined in There have been several attempts to in- terms of maintaining or reconstructing eco- tegrate these various interpretations and nomically and socially viable rural systems. scales of agriculture. Spedding (1979) con- Yunlongand Smit (1994) also distinguished ceived agricultural systems as a hierarchy three main perceptions of sustainability. The of enterprises, , plantations, regional first is the ecological definition of sus- and national . Conway (1985a) tainability, which focuses on biophysical pro- described agriculture as a hierarchy of agro- cesses and continued productivity of ecosystems, each possessing properties functioning ecosystems.The second isthe eco- which distinguish one from the other. Some nomic definition of sustainability, which is conceptual models focus on the farm as the mainly concerned with the long-term main- basic agricultural unit, which interacts with tenance of the benefits of farming to agri- the physical, economic and social en- cultural producers. The third is the social vironments from local to global scales definition,whichaddressesthecontinuedsat- (Bryant and Johnson, 1992). Others have isfaction of basic human needs for food and recognized the linkages among different shelter, as well as security, equity, freedom, components and scales of agriculture to education, employment and recreation. study the effects of shocks and stresses on the The views of Douglass (1984) and Yunlong system (Williams et al., 1988; Kulshreshtha and Smit (1994) reflect the diversity in and Klein, 1989). However, most sus- understanding of sustainability as it relates tainability research has adopted a particular to agriculture. Drawing on this under- scale and dimension of agriculture, resulting standing, interpretations of sustainability in a myriad of definitions and methodologies follow four dominant paradigms. These are for its assessment. equity, both intergenerational and intra- generational (Smit and Smithers, 1993), food Defining agricultural sustainability sufficiency (Smit and Brklacich, 1989), en- vironmental stewardship (Smit and Smith- Douglass (1984) identified three different ers, 1993) and socio-economic viability views of sustainability. The first view was (Ikerd, 1990; Brklacich et al., 1991). called ‘sustainability as food sufficiency’, Despite the diversity in conceptualizing which seeks to maximize food production agricultural sustainability, there is some 18 C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald broad consistency among definitions. Defin- Sustainability as an approach to itions generally contain three important cri- agriculture teria (Pesek, 1994): Conventional (modern) agriculture is char- • environmental quality and ecological acterized as capital intensive, large scale, soundness; highly mechanised systems with mono- • plant and animal productivity; and, cultures of crops and extensive use of arti- • socio-economic viability. ficial fertilizers and pesticides. Sustainable agriculture ideologies arise as alternatives to All three criteria must be met before sus- the conventional approach (Hill and MacRae, tainable agriculture is achieved. A system 1988). These include the use of on-farm or must be ecologically sustainable or it cannot locally available resources, reduced use of persist over the long term, and thus cannot synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, increased be productive and profitable. Likewise, a sys- use of crop rotations and organic materials tem must be productive and profitable over as soil ameliorates, diversification of crop the long term or it cannot be sustained eco- and animal species and reduced stocking nomically, no matter how ecologically sound rates (Hansen, 1996). it is (Altieri, 1987; Ikerd, 1990; Stenholm According to Hansen (1996), interpreting and Waggoner, 1990; SCA, 1991). sustainability as an approach to agriculture has been useful for motivating change and Conceptual approaches to has provided a banner for agricultural re- assessing agricultural form movements. Also, research and pro- motion of sustainability as a set of strategies sustainability has become an important part of policy mak- Hansen (1996) reviewed the conceptual ap- ing. However, interpreting sustainability as proaches to agricultural sustainability an approach to agriculture is not always assessment. He sees two broad in- useful. Firstly, it is based on the presumed terpretations. The first is a goal-prescribing benefits of listed practices but does not pro- concept, which interprets sustainability as an vide any quantitative analysis—just, for ex- ideological approach to agriculture. This con- ample, that using fewer chemicals is better. cept was developed in response to concerns Secondly, agriculture considered sustainable about the impacts of agriculture on the en- in developed countries may be inappropriate vironment, with the underlying goal of mo- for use in developing countries. The third tivating alternative agricultural practices. problem is that a distorted view of con- The second is a system-describing concept, ventional agriculture may cause approaches, which interprets sustainability as the prop- which enhance sustainability, to be rejected erty of agriculture to either fulfil a diverse because of their similarity to conventional set of goals or to continue through time. This agricultural practice (Hansen, 1996). concept relates to concerns about the impacts of global change on the viability of agri- culture. The conceptual approaches to agri- Sustainability as a property of agriculture cultural sustainability assessment are therefore: As a property of agriculture, sustainability • Sustainability as an approach to agri- is interpreted as either the ability to satisfy culture a diverse set of goals or an ability to continue —sustainability as an alternative ideo- through time (Hansen, 1996). The goals of logy sustainable agriculture generally include —sustainability as a set of strategies. maintenance or enhancement of the natural • Sustainability as a property of agri- environment, provision of human food needs, culture economic viability and social welfare. The —sustainability as an ability to satisfy advantage of this approach is that it captures goals the multi-objective character of sus- —sustainability as an ability to con- tainability. Its main disadvantage is that the tinue. goals to be satisfied are different in each Assessing the sustainability of agriculture 19 application depending on the definitions in one situation may not be in another. Gold- used. man (1995) states, for example, that the Interpreting sustainability as ‘an ability typical prescription for sustainable agri- to continue’ is consistent with the literal culture, and associated conceptions of agri- interpretation of the word sustainable. Its cultural problems, clearly addresses potential usefulness comes from suggesting mainstream agricultural practice in Western criteria for characterizing sustainability, industrial nations, where extensive use of providing a basis for identifying constraints mechanical, chemical, energy, and material and evaluating proposed approaches to its inputs is likely to generate numerous neg- improvement (Hansen, 1996). Its main dis- ative side effects. On the great majority of advantage is the lack of consistent criteria African farms, however, there is little if any with which to assess the persistence of agri- use of chemical inputs, fossil fuel energy, or cultural systems. irrigation. Therefore, most prescriptions of sustainable agriculture are basically de- scriptions of agriculture in Africa and many Methodological approaches to other developing countries (Goldman, 1995). assessing agricultural sustainability Multiple qualitative and quantitative indicators Different approaches to agricultural sus- tainability assessment have developed in as- This approach to agricultural sustainability sociation with these different conceptual assessment is consistent with interpreting approaches (Hansen, 1996). For example, sustainability as the ability to meet a diverse assessment by adherence to prescribed ap- set of goals where no single indicator exists. proaches is based on an interpretation of Here several system attributes believed to sustainability as an approach to agriculture. influence sustainability are identified and Assessment using multiple qualitative and measurable indicators identified for each. A quantitative indicators is consistent with in- negative change in an individual indicator terpreting sustainability as an ability to sat- suggests that the system is unsustainable isfy diverse goals. Sustainability as an ability (Torquebiau, 1992). to continue is assessed using time trends or Recognition of the need for quantification resilience analysis. A brief outline of these has motivated efforts to combine indicators methodologies follows. into integrated, quantitative measures. Lal et al. (1990) propose a quantitative equation for measuring sustainability as follows: Adherence to prescribed approaches

This approach to agricultural sustainability S=f(P, E, D, C, Q, .....)t assessment is consistent with interpreting where S sustainability sustainable agriculture as the adoption of = P agronomic productivity alternative agricultural practices. Here, = E=total energy input farms are classified as sustainable if they D=measure of soil degradation reduce chemical inputs relative to typical C=carbon efflux from soil and the farms, and include rotations, legumes, tillage biomass into the atmosphere and cover crops for the management of fer- Q=water quality tility, erosion and weeds (Dobbs et al., 1991). t=time Quantitative indices of sustainability have also been developed by assigning values to production practices based on their ‘inherent Another example is that of Stockle et al. sustainability’, then combining these into (1994) where sustainability is evaluated by a composite index evaluated for each farm assigning weights to system attributes, scor- (Taylor et al., 1993). ing the attributes based on specific con- The limitation of these techniques is that straints, and then combining the weights and prescribed practices deemed as sustainable scores to produce a figure of merit (Figure 1). 20 C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald

Low Attributes Constraints

Is it profitable ? low net income; low yields; high input costs; no markets

Is it productive ? lack of pest control; crops not adapted; lack of nutrients; lack of water; unstable yields; poor crop quality

Are soil quality standards being met ? soil erosion; salinization; alkalization; compaction; biological deterioration; organic matter decline; organic toxins

Are water quality standards being met ? chemical run-off; chemical percolation; sedimentation

Are air quality standards being met ? dust from wind erosion; odour Sustainability trend Is it energy efficient ? high external inputs; inefficient use of biological resources

Are fish and wildlife habitats maintained ? sedimentation; chemical run-off; lack of cover

Is quality of life maintained ? worker safety; food safety; community structure; rural development

Is it socially and culturally acceptable ? aesthetics; off-site impacts; High education of public

Figure 1. Evaluation diagram of farming system sustainability (Stockle et al., 1994).

Productivity indices can be considered as Time trends another form of integrated quantitative in- dicators. The Soil Potential Index (SPI) is an Time trends are consistent with interpreting example of a productivity index (McCor- sustainability as an ability to continue. Here mack, 1986): sustainability assessments are made in terms of the direction and degree of meas- urable changes in system properties. A sys- SPI P CM CL = − − tem is considered sustainable if there is no where P=performance (yield) negative trend in selected system properties. CM=corrective measure index Monteith (1990) proposed determining sus- (removable limitations) tainability from a contingency table of trends CL=continuing limitation index in inputs and outputs (Table 2). (permanent limitations) The analysis highlighted two major prob- lems in using production statistics to assess the sustainability of agricultural systems. The disadvantage of using multiple qual- First, using long-term statistics had the ad- itative and quantitative indicators is that vantage of establishing the mean values of they may not allow for diagnosing the causes long-term trends in yield with acceptably of unsustainability, or for evaluating the ef- small errors (±10%). However, it is also fects of proposed interventions. Diagnosis of important to establish trends over the recent sustainability is further limited by the need past—say five to 10 years. When analysis to decide in advance the relative importance was restricted to this shorter time span, the of different constraints to sustainability error in estimating yield trend was of the (Hansen, 1996). order of ±100%. Analysts are therefore faced Assessing the sustainability of agriculture 21

Table 2. Contingency table for inferring sustainability based on trends of system inputs and outputs (Monteith, 1990)

Outputs Inputs

Decreasing Constant Increasing

Decreasing Indeterminate Unsustainable Unsustainable Constant Sustainable Sustainable Unsustainable Increasing Sustainable Sustainable Indeterminate

with a dilemma: to assess sustainability on the basis of recent trends that are very un- Low sensitivity certain, or to rely on more precise long-term trends which may have ceased to be relevant because of environmental and technological High sensitivity High resilience change (Monteith, 1990). Minimum viable Yield yield The second problem is the indeterminate nature of sustainability when both output Application of and input are increased. Increases in input improved could be enough to conceal the impact of practice increasing yields on the environment. The Time possibility of a concealed loss of sus- tainability in such circumstances is a prob- Figure 2. Representation of the concepts of lem (Monteith, 1990). resilience and sensitivity (Coughlan, 1995). Characterizing sustainability by time trends is appealing because of its simplicity. The slope of the trend line provides a quan- a change in available nutrient concentration titative index, but the assumption that fu- following modification of that system by ture rates of system degradation can be people. Resilience was measured as the abil- approximated from past rates is often dif- ity of a system to restore its capacity (output) ficult to defend. Unsustainability may ex- on application of improved management. press itself as either a gradual change or a These concepts are illustrated in Figure 2 sudden collapse. Furthermore, the reasons where minimum viable yield has been set as for unsustainability trends might be external the threshold for sustainability. The mini- to the system such as population pressure, mum viable yield may be an economic ‘break- resource demands, market structures and even point’ for commercial cash cropping or technology. Another weakness of time trend a minimum household food requirement for analysis is separating variability from subsistence farming (Coughlan, 1995). trends, which is especially true for short- Agroecosystem analysis also analyses re- term data sets (Hansen, 1996). silience and sensitivity and therefore falls into this category of sustainability assess- ment. Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) show Resilience and sensitivity that by treating both as vectors, resilience and sensitivity can be used to classify the This method is consistent with interpreting sustainability of agroecosystems (Figure 3). sustainability as an ability to continue. In Sustainability, productivity, stability, equi- this context, sustainability is defined as the tability and practicability are also measures ability of a system to maintain its pro- commonly used in agroecosystem analysis ductivity when subject to stress. Coughlan (Conway, 1985a,b). Altieri (1989) goes fur- (1995) used the concepts of resilience and ther, incorporating political issues and socio- sensitivity to classify the reaction of soils to economic aspects. land use. Sensitivity was measured as the Resilience and sensitivity can be viewed degree to which the output of a land use as an aggregate system response to the de- changed by natural processes, for example, terminants of sustainability. However, the 22 C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald

High production, environmental degradation, eco- Delicate nomic processes and decisions (Hansen, 1996). Robust Potentially very Astute management sustainable required to sustain Sustainability indicators Marginal Basically Resilience sustainability unsustainable Sustainability indicators are the most pro- Difficult lific method of sustainability evaluation

Fragile within the literature. They fit within ‘sus- Low High tainability as a property of agriculture’ in Sensitivity conceptual approaches to sustainability assessment and ‘multiple qualitative and Figure 3. Categories of potential sustainability of quantitative indicators’ in the method- agroecosystems (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987). ological approaches to sustainability assess- ment. They are discussed further in this paper since this is the direction in which many countries, Australia and Canada in particular, are heading in sustainable agri- inability to identify a single measure of re- culture research. silience and sensitivity leads to the same Indicators of agricultural sustainability problems of interpretation faced when using can be perceived at several levels, depending a diverse set of indicators. Measures of re- on the scale at which evaluations are made silience and sensitivity also ignore the socio- (Table 3). Apart from different scales of ap- economic goals of humans within the system plication, indicators may also differ in the (Hansen, 1996). directness of measurement, and the time scale of operation. For instance, the direct- ness of measurement may vary from a direct System simulation measure such as soil loss, through a proxy measure such as soil cover, to an indirect Simulation is used in a number of ways to measure such as herbivore density. Sim- estimate agricultural system sustain- ilarly, the time scale of operation may vary ability—to characterize the sustainability of from a leading indicator such as clearing of crop production in relation to soil dynamics steeplands, to a concurrent indicator such as for example (Lerohl, 1991). Other studies inappropriate land management practices, have used crop simulation models to examine to a lagging indicator such as abandonment the relationship between production and en- of land (Coughlan, 1995). vironmental degradation (Singh and Thorn- The indicators used depends on whether ton, 1992). Yield prediction models have also it is the potential effects of land management been developed for the purpose of estimating being assessed, which requires leading in- production potential. CROPWAT (FAO, dicators, or the past effects of land man- 1988), WOFOST (Van Diepen et al., 1988), agement using lagging indicators. Direct QUEFTS (Janssen et al., 1989) and IBSNAT indicators can be used where data exist and (IBSNAT/SMSS, 1987) are some examples of proxy or indirect indicators must be used these. where data are scarce. The next three sec- Simulation can be used to examine long tions review some of these indicators pro- term, future impacts of alternative in- posed for use in Australia. terventions in a manner that is not possible with observation or experimentation. How- ever, the value of simulation is limited by Biophysical indicators the capabilities of simulation models, by availability and reliability of input data, and On-site biophysical indicators. A wide range by a lack of methods for interpreting sim- of biophysical factors influence agricultural ulation results. So far, there has been little sustainability, which results in diverse lists integration of models of crop and animal of land quality indicators. In Australia, the Assessing the sustainability of agriculture 23

Table 3. Levels of sustainability assessment (FAO, 1989)

Levels of Typical characteristics of Typical determinants assessment sustainability

Field Productive crops and animals; Soil and water management; conservation of soil and water; low biological control of pests; use of levels of crop pests and animal organic manure; fertilizers, diseases pesticides, crop varieties and animal breeds Farm Awareness by ; economic Access to knowledge, inputs and and social needs satisfied; viable markets production systems Country Public awareness; sound Policies for agricultural development of agroecological development; population pressure; potential; conservation of agricultural education, research resources and extension World Quality of natural environment; Control of pollution; climatic human welfare and equity stability; terms of trade; mechanisms; international distribution agricultural research and development

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Re- would show increasing water use efficiency, source Management (SCARM) focused on nutrient replacement, maintenance of bio- trends in land and water that affect long- diversity, and declining soil loss (SCARM, term production, and have proposed land 1993). capability and production potential for use in Farm management practices also directly defining attributes of land and water quality affect the productive capacity of farms, and affecting on-site agricultural sustainability. the use of preferred practices can supplement Agricultural land, which is inappropriately the attributes used in the measurement of on- farmed compared with its suitability, might site land and water quality (Table 4). be considered as an indicator for un- sustainability at the farm level, for example. Off-site biophysical indicators. The most fre- A comparison between potential and ac- quently cited off-site environmental impacts tual production can also be used as an at- arising from both historical and present agri- tribute in an on-site biophysical cultural activities include: sustainability indicator. A simple model of • the alteration of landscape hydrology the physical equilibrium on a farm can be by clearance of deep rooted perennial shown as (SCARM, 1993): vegetation; • rise in ground water through the ex- Inputs↔Capacity to produce↔Exports cessive use of irrigation waters; • siltation of rivers, dams and natural where the physical inputs are transformed, water bodies, and atmospheric through the capacity of the resource base to pollution, through surface soil trans- produce, into exports from the system. All portation by water and wind; inputs and outputs will affect the capacity • leaching of fertilizers and pesticides into of the resource to produce; some negatively ground waters and streams, and aerial and some positively. pesticide pollution leading to human Capacity to produce can be related to a health problems, through inappropriate number of measurable attributes including use of agricultural chemicals; and, water use efficiency, nutrient balance, bio- • loss of natural flora and fauna through logical resilience, soil loss and management large-scale clearing of native habitats. practice inputs. While development of a gen- eralized relationship between these at- SCARM (1993) proposed changes in food tributes requires further research, farming quality, landscape hydrology and native eco- districts tending towards sustainability systems attributable to agricultural practice 24 C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald

Table 4. Farm management practices which affect land and water quality (after SCARM, 1993)

Condition Less sustainable More sustainable

Soil soil nutrients and rotations without legumes; improved rotations with biological activity low fertilizer use; inadequate legumes and weed control; drainage balanced fertilizer use; adequate drainage soil structure many cultivations; bare minimum tillage; stubble fallows retention soil acidification no lime; plants shallow- regular liming; use of rooted; excess fertilizer use gypsum and deep-rooted perennials soil erosion overgrazing; excess low stocking rates; minimum cultivation; poor property tillage; plant cover; stubble planning; soil exposure retention; contour banks; strip cropping Water waterlogging heavy traffic; over-cultivation; strategic re-vegetation; use poor drainage of gypsum and less cultivation; drainage plan surface water quality excessive irrigation; bare soil efficient water use; retention surfaces; high pesticide and of ground cover; low fertilizer use pesticides/toxins

as off-site environmental indicators of landowners and land managers in finance, sustainability. The indicators focus on those farming practice and environmental stew- impacts that permanently damage other eco- ardship as a social indicator of sustainability. systems, or which are technically or fin- Managerial skill encompasses decision mak- ancially difficult to repair. ing about the products grown, physical farm management including operational planning and conservation, financial planning, and Economic indicators the capacity to realize personal and societal goals. Table 5 lists a selection of measures and Following McLagan (1980), SCARM iden- attributes of the economic environment. tified four categories of managerial com- Profitability is one of the primary indicators petency. The first is formal knowledge, which of agricultural sustainability, the issue being is the educational level of those employed in to ensure that agriculture is profitable but farming compared to that of the rest of the not at the expense of the environment, and community. The formal knowledge indicator to recognize that farm profitability might be can be represented as the ratio of farming increased by preventing or repairing en- population to total regional population that vironmental degradation. SCARM (1993) has achieved a full school education, plus suggested measurement of the change in the ratio of higher education training in the long-term real net farm income (real value farming sector relative to the total popu- of agricultural production minus real value lation. of farm costs) as an economic indicator of The second category of managerial com- sustainable agriculture. petence is the skills base, for example literacy and numeracy, driving, welding, machinery operation and computing. While farming Social indicators skills are taught in rural education in- stitutions, many farmers have acquired skill Factors of the social environment are out- through years of experience and there is a lined in Table 6. SCARM (1993) suggested danger of undervaluing this. Some skills such changes in the managerial skill of farmers, as driving and chemical use require licensing, Assessing the sustainability of agriculture 25

Table 5. Factors of the economic environment that may influence agricultural sustainability (Smyth and Dumanski, 1993)

Factor Measure or attribute

Resources land farm size; fragmentation; land tenure labour family labour availability; hired labour availability; seasonality of labour capital returns to capital; gearing ratio; options for surplus disposal and deficit reduction knowledge literacy rates; education levels; access to extension type; use draft power land/labour, capital/labour use ratios; returns to input use efficiency Economic environment production costs levels; seasonal and yearly variation; associated uncertainty product prices levels; seasonal and yearly variation; associated uncertainty credit availability, types and use; interest rates markets infrastructure; access, distance to input and output markets population level; rate of change; seasonal migration patterns Attitudes objectives objective function including profit or utility maximization, risk reduction, planning horizon; time preferences risk aversion coefficients of absolute, relative, partial risk aversion expectations yield and price expectations Complex qualities income household income; income per head; proportion of household income from off-farm activities, net farm income profitability gross margins/ha; net returns/ha consumption total consumption; proportion spent of food poverty indices percentage of total consumption expenditure on food

Table 6. Factors of the social environment that may influence agricultural sustainability (Smyth and Dumanski, 1993)

Category of social factor Related characteristics to assess

Macro-social, economic and Overall commitment to social justice, equity, participation and political democratic institutions Legal, fiscal and regulatory Existence of appropriate incentive and control structures framework; overall policy promoting sustainability environment Meeting physical and strategic Existence of opportunities within and outside the resource needs utilization system, distribution of wealth within and between social units Ratio of resource availability to Existence of mechanisms to reduce pressure on land use population’s overall needs systems Conflicts over resource use Extent of conflict and existence of accepted conflict resolution mechanisms, social participation in decision making Access to resources and to Equity of land tenure system, extent of access to credit and other outputs of production resources, gender equity Meeting individual costs of Existence of transfer and compensatory mechanisms sustainable behaviour through social investment Local affordability of sustainable Labour requirements and material and other costs within the behaviour capability of those affected Security and the level of risk Risk reduction in the short and medium term, increase of opportunities for smoothing out income streams Attitude changes, knowledge, Investment in environmental education, communication beliefs, values Working with socio-cultural grain Responsiveness to felt needs, local participation, compatibility to local systems of knowledge, beliefs and values 26 C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald and statistics on these could give a rough the monitoring of agricultural sustainability. estimate of the level of some operations Note that most of the indicators relate only carried out on farms (SCARM, 1993). to on-farm sustainability assessment, which The third category of managerial com- is a limitation given the desirability of sus- petence is the attitudes of the land managers, tainability assessment at different scales. including ethics, codes of practice, and or- ganizational membership. Membership within conservation groups or other com- Unsustainability indicators munity land management groups, such as Landcare, provide statistics, which could be It has been suggested within the literature used for detecting attitudinal shifts. Other that indicators of unsustainability may be indicators of management attitudes include used in place of indicators of sustainability public awareness of conservation, the pro- when evaluating agricultural systems. This portion of the community attending training is similar to land evaluation methods, which courses and the degree of promotion of con- identify limitations to land use. The logic servation practices by advisory services. A is that it is easier and quicker to identify further suggestion is the proportion of farm- constraints to progress rather than identify ers using multiple sources of information all the factors that contribute to progress. such as advisory services and consultants Indicators of unsustainability are desirable (SCARM, 1993). for a number of reasons (Svendsen, 1990): The last component of managerial com- petence is the planning capacity of farmers, including farm planning, responses to risk • they remove the need to define what is and financial management. Farm planning sustainable; includes the use of physical and financial • they are normally already available and plans, and an indicator might be the pro- measurable; portion of farmers with farm financial and • from past experience, cause and effect physical plans (SCARM, 1993). are usually known; and, Figure 4 summarizes the complete set of • they are easily linked to resource man- indicators, which SCARM has proposed for agement practices.

Key indicators Major attributes

Real net farm Net farm Productivity Terms of Area of land income income trade used for agriculture

Land and water Water use Nutrient Area of Degree of quality efficiency balance native vegetation vegetation fragmentation

Managerial skills Farmer education Skills index Conservation Farm planning level attitude index capacity

Off-site Food chemical River turbidity Dust storm Length of environmental contamination frequency contact impacts level zones

Figure 4. The relationship between proposed sustainability indicators and attributes of agricultural sustainability (SCARM, 1993). Assessing the sustainability of agriculture 27

Table 7. Some indicators of unsustainability (Jodha, 1990)

Visibility of change Resource base Production flows Resource management practices

Directly visible Increased landslides Prolonged negative Reduced fallows, and other forms of trends in yield; crop rotation, land degradation; increasing intercropping and fragmentation of production inputs diversified land; changed per production unit; management botanical lower per capita practices; increasing composition of availability of use of submarginal forests and agricultural products lands; increased use pastures; reduced of legal measures to water flows for control land use; irrigation high intensity of input use Changes concealed Substitution of deep Introduction of Shifts in cropping by responses to rooted crops by externally supported patterns and management shallow rooted public food and composition of crops; shift to non- input distribution livestock; reduced local inputs systems; intensive diversity and cropping on limited increasing areas monocultures Development New systems Agricultural initiatives without linkages to measures directed other diversified toward short-term activities; generating results; primarily excessive product (as against dependence on resource) centred outside resources approaches to such as fertilizers agricultural and pesticides development

Therefore, until the processes influencing (1994) have classified the frameworks cur- the sustainability of agricultural systems are rently available for reporting on en- sufficiently well understood, it may be more vironmental issues. These frameworks effective to develop indicators which identify include those for environmental accounting the presence of processes and practices such as social accounting and green ac- which, from past experience, are un- counting (Costanza, 1991), environmental sustainable (Table 7). reporting such as the Pressure-State- Response (PSR) model (OECD, 1993), and sustainability assessment. Frameworks available for The International Framework for Eval- assessing the sustainability of land uating Sustainable Land Management management (FESLM) is the international standard sug- gested for agricultural sustainability assess- Frameworks serve to organize the large ment (Smyth and Dumanski, 1993). Within quantities of data used for developing sus- the FESLM, land management is assessed tainability indicators, to improve the ac- using five pillars or criteria. These are the cessibility of indicators, and to integrate maintenance or enhancement of production them in a meaningful way. Frameworks can and services (productivity), the reduction of also link individual monitoring programs, production risk (security), the protection of identify duplication and gaps, facilitate de- the natural resources and the prevention velopment of new indicators and increase the of soil and water degradation (protection), use of this information for the development of economic viability (viability), and social ac- policies and programs. Dumanski and Pieri ceptability (acceptability). For each of these 28 C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald

a single crop). This has two main dis- advantages. Firstly, it reduces its usefulness Threshold to planners who generally require in- Indicator formation at a number of scales (Brookfield and Humphreys, 1995). Secondly, it restricts Diagnostic criteria the inclusion of off-site factors in sus- tainability assessment, which may operate at a watershed or regional level. Smyth Period of sustainability Time and Dumanski (1993) acknowledge this by stating that some issues that do not relate Figure 5. Schematic representation of the use of directly to the characteristics of the in- diagnostic criteria, indicators and thresholds in the vestigated site, and therefore do not fit com- FESLM. fortably within the FESLM, may be important in decision making on sus- tainability. pillars, evaluation factors, diagnostic cri- In order to be complementary with the teria, indicators and thresholds are used in FAO Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO, sustainability assessment (Figure 5). 1976), the FESLM places land uses into sus- Land uses are classified into sustainability tainability classes based on time. Smyth and classes according to the period of sus- Dumanski (1993) argue that assessing a land tainability, i.e. the length of time expected use as either sustainable or unsustainable to elapse before continued use of the land is not meaningful and that planners will for the defined purpose is unacceptable require more guidance than can be provided (Table 8). by a yes/no decision. This is true; however, The publication of the FESLM was im- placing time limits on land use has in the portant in that it focused thought on the past led to unsustainability. The best ex- practicality of sustainability assessment. ample of this in Australia relates to land However, the framework has some weak- tenure, where term leases have led to over- nesses including: exploitation of the resource base and a failure to implement long-term land management • a focus on on-site factors in sus- strategies. The essential difference between tainability evaluation, term leases and perpetual leases are that • the classification of sustainability the latter gives special value to the carrying within defined time frames, capacity of the land. When a term lease • the lack of a multi-scaled approach to expires, compensation is paid only for im- sustainability assessment; and provements constructed on the property— its use as a tool for assessing the sus- • the condition of the land itself is of no tainability of existing land use systems. consequence. A perpetual lessee can be com- In an attempt to reduce complexity, the pensated for having increased the carrying FESLM concentrates on on-site sus- capacity of the land by being given future tainability analysis over small areas within use of that land (Young, 1985). In addition which biophysical, economic and social fac- to this, processes causing land degradation tors are almost uniform (a small field under can operate on much longer time scales than

Table 8. FESLM classification of sustainability (Smyth and Dumanski, 1993)

Class Confidence limits

Sustainable (1) Sustainable in the long term >25 years (2) Sustainable in the medium term 15–25 years (3) Sustainable in the short term 7–15 years Unsustainable (4) Slightly unstable 5–7 years (5) Moderately unstable 2–5 years (6) Highly unstable <2 years Assessing the sustainability of agriculture 29

Soil nutrient exhaustion

Surface soil acidity

Nutrients in streams

Waterlogging/salinity

Soil structural/organic matter decline

Chemical contamination

Subsurface soil acidity

Reduced species diversity

Enhanced greenhouse effect

Organochlorine contamination

Siltation in major water storages

Salinity

Loss of soil mass

Permanent damage Loss of biodiversity Loss of habitats Heavy metal contamination

5 10 100 1000 Years

Figure 6. Time scales for land degradation processes to take effect (Roberts, 1995).

those suggested in the FESLM. Land cleared and land management, would be more de- for agriculture 100 years ago may only now, sirable. for example, be suffering the effects of salinization (Figure 6). In its current form, the FESLM focuses on evaluating the sustainability of existing land A framework for assessing management and land uses. Smyth and Du- manski (1993) state that the FESLM does the sustainability of not encompass planning or development, al- agriculture at the planning though it can make important contributions stage to both. This is a limitation in that it is reactive rather than proactive and sig- nificant resource degradation may occur be- The sustainability philosophies and methods fore a land use is identified as unsustainable. reviewed all shed light on the practice of An evaluation system, which prevents the sustainability assessment. Although there is implementation of unsustainable land uses wide variation, they agree on the broad scope 30 C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald of sustainability and give criteria for eval- of this paper aims to provide a solution to uating existing land use systems. A sig- this problem. nificant challenge arises in determining what are sustainable agricultural uses prior to converting currently unused or less in- tensively used areas to new land uses. Ex- The framework amples of this include conversion of forest land to grazing or cultivation, intensification In developing this sustainability assessment of existing land use by irrigation and framework, there were some important con- mechanization, structural reforms and pri- siderations: vatisation. The conventional approach to agricultural • Sustainability evaluation should assess land use planning in Australia uses land agricultural systems in terms of the bio- suitability assessment (e.g. FAO, 1976; Dent, physical, economic and social spheres of 1991). While land suitability studies address the environment. land productivity at the farm or local scale • A knowledge-based approach to sus- and address some biophysical impacts such tainability analysis, using proxy meas- as soil erosion, none are comprehensive tools ures where necessary, will be more to approach sustainability as discussed in desirable than depending only on quan- this paper. In particular they do not in- titative techniques which are limited to corporate many of the socio-economic vari- those areas where processes are well ables at scales greater than the local scale understood and quantifiable. or consider possible off-site impacts caused • Factors influencing agricultural sus- by agricultural land use. Some reform or tainability operate at different scales, extension of these approaches is clearly both spatially and temporally, and necessary if they are to meet the needs of therefore, a multiscaled approach is sustainability assessment. necessary. An alternative approach to assessing sus- • Identifying unsustainability, sus- tainability at the planning stage is en- tainability weaknesses, or potential vironmental impact assessment (EIA) and threats to sustainability, is often easier its derivative, strategic environmental than identifying what will be sus- assessment (SEA). EIA is widely used as tainable and allows remedial action to a project level methodology for identifying, be targeted. predicting and evaluating the environmental consequences of development proposals. EIA The framework proposed here aims to en- is very flexible, intended to incorporate a compass the biophysical, economic and social broad range of biophysical and socio- spheres of the environment, and is a multi- economic considerations (World Bank, 1992). scaled approach, using proxy measures SEA emerged in recent years to extend the where necessary to identify threats to sus- concept of EIA to apply to policies, programs tainability within agricultural systems. The and plans (Therivel, 1993; UNEP, 1995). Es- overall structure of the framework is shown sentially the core analysis in SEA is similar in Figure 7. The multiscaled and multi- to EIA, but the target is not a project but a dimensional structure of the framework is higher level proposal such as a plan. In- represented in Figure 8. creasingly, SEA is being applied to local and regional plans and development programs (HMSO, 1993; Wood, 1995). So how do we apply the concepts of sus- Field scale tainability at the planning stage, before land use change occurs? Is the best approach an Agricultural land management begins at the extension of land suitability assessment or field or management unit scale, where sus- would an improvement on EIA/SEA be more tainability involves maintaining or en- effective? Either way, the method must in- hancing the productivity of the land clude the necessary sustainability criteria. resource base. At this scale, those factors The framework developed in the second half influencing agricultural sustainability are Assessing the sustainability of agriculture 31

balance, soil loss, pests and diseases, and

Database Land use description Knowledge base farm management inputs therefore become important. Biophysical What Rules Economic Where Models Social When How

Farm scale

The farm is the basic economic unit in the Indicator system hierarchy of agricultural systems. A field Field may be uneconomic, or its use unsustainable, Farm Watershed while the farm remains economically viable. Region/Nation Conversely, fields on a farm may do well agronomically, but do poorly economically due to low commodity prices or high pro- Threat identification duction costs. In order to be socio-eco- nomically viable, the economic and social needs of the farmer must be met, and the farmer must have access to appropriate Figure 7. Sustainability evaluation framework. knowledge for management purposes, pro- duction inputs and commodity markets. Im- portant sustainability indicators at the farm scale therefore include profitability, eco- Regional or national scale – nomic uncertainty, input and market avail- macroeconomic ability, the skills and knowledge base indicators available to the farmer, the planning cap- acity of the farmer, and the incentives avail- able to manage land in a sustainable manner. These incentives may include best man- agement practice guidelines, off-farm income Watershed scale – ecological indicators and access to credit, government assistance and land tenure (Thampapillai and And- erson, 1994).

Farm scale – microeconomic Watershed scale indicators The aggregate of farms and other land uses in an area forms an agricultural landscape or watershed. Agriculture requires materials and services from the environment, such as the purification and recycling of air and Field scale – water. These functions are enhanced by a agronomic indicators diversity of managed and unmanaged eco- systems interspersed throughout the land- scape. At the watershed level, the cumulative Figure 8. The hierarchical nature of agricultural effects of individual agronomic and economic systems (after Lowrance et al., 1986). practices can become apparent. Such cumu- lative impacts affect ecological sus- tainability, which requires the maintenance predominantly biophysical in nature and of the life support capacity of landscape units relate to sustained production. Indicators, (Lowrance et al., 1986). Indicators that as- which reflect water use efficiency, nutrient sess the effect of land use patterns on natural 32 C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald drainage, riparian vegetation, groundwater particular problems, to be linked with the and surface water quantity and quality, bio- relevant data, providing an integrated data diversity, habitat connectivity, and other and knowledge base for use with sus- flora and fauna conservation needs become tainability indicators. important at this scale. The land use description provides the con- text in which sustainability assessment will be undertaken. It aims to provide important information on the nature of the land uses Regional scale under investigation, particularly man- agement practices. A land use description At the regional, national and international contains land use objective and means in- scale, macroeconomic constraints, especially formation and can be broken into What, economic policy, determine the focus of na- Where, When and How components (Table tional economies, and eventually the ability 9). of a nation’s agricultural system to feed its population (Lowrance et al., 1986). Here the factors most likely to influence agricultural sustainability are socio-economic and in- Threat identification clude indicators that measure the technology and resources available for food production The aim of threat identification is to identify and environmental protection, the presence potential sources of unsustainability within or absence of appropriate land use controls, agricultural systems. Its role is to highlight population pressure, the contribution of agri- those dimensions or scales of an agricultural culture to regional and national employment system that need attention, not to classify and income, and the distribution of the costs land uses as sustainable or unsustainable. and benefits (direct and indirect) of agri- To identify threats using indicators, it is cultural production within society (spatially necessary to define thresholds and weights. and temporally). Thresholds are indicator levels beyond which the system is thought to become un- sustainable. Weightings are the relative importance each indicator has to the overall Indicator groups sustainability of the system. Thresholds and weightings may be qualitative, obtained Figure 9 summarizes those indicator groups through quantitative experimentation or for agricultural sustainability evaluation at simulation modelling, or obtained through the scales discussed above. Data availability consensus or expert opinion. The latter is and the potential or actual environmental more conducive to knowledge-based systems problems perceived to exist at the location and may be the most feasible where the under investigation will determine the se- relationship between sustainability and in- lection of specific indicators. dicator levels is poorly understood (Chidley The components that feed into the in- et al., 1993; Shaw et al., 1994; Yizengaw and dicator system are the database, the know- Verheye, 1995). ledge base and the land use description. The A three-dimensional matrix as shown in database contains land resource as well as Figure 10 can represent the threat iden- socio-economic data. It cannot contain an tification process. The matrix works by high- exhaustive set of data, rather a set of sig- lighting the scales at which land uses nificant data required to meet the in- represent a threat to sustainability. For formation needs of the sustainability issues example, production system I with land to be assessed. Collecting and organizing management III could be considered un- data with respect to defined problems can sustainable since sustainability indicators help reduce the collection of unnecessary show threats at all scales. Production system data and provide a structured pathway for II with land management III could be con- data analysis. It also allows knowledge, in sidered sustainable since it satisfies sus- the form of rules and models associated with tainability indicators at all scales. However, Assessing the sustainability of agriculture 33

Economic policy Employment Regional and national income Social equity Technology base Socio-economic Region/Nation Land use control factors predominate; Dominant Population pressure paradigm = Food sufficiency

Natural drainage WatershedEcological factors predominate; Riparian vegetation Ground/surface water quantity/quality Dominant paradigm = Environmental Biodiversity and habitat connectivity stewardship Flora and fauna conservation needs

Profitability Input availability Skills base Market availability Economic uncertaintity Farm Information base Planning capacity Socio-economic Conservation attitudes factors predominate; Dominant Conservation incentives paradigm = Socio-economic viability

Field Nutrient balance Biophysical factors predominate; Soil loss potential Water use efficiency Dominant paradigm = Land Biophysical land suitability productivity Pest and disease susceptibility

Economic indicators

Scale Social indicators Biophysical indicators

Figure 9. Sustainability indicator groups useful in agricultural sustainability assessment at four scales.

Table 9. Information contained in the land use description (after Smyth and Dumanski, 1993)

Description Information contained component

What Expected goods and services produced by the land use Where Geographical location, landscape position, size and configuration of land holding, land tenure, surrounding land use, etc. When Commencement and expected duration of land use How Means of achieving land use objectives: capital intensity, labour, power sources, technology employed, production systems employed, conservation measures employed, etc.

production system I with land management available would be an important con- II shows a threat to sustainability at the sideration in deciding on the fate of the land farm scale. In this case, the remedial action use. 34 C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald

Land management I II III

I Threat OK Threat

II Threat OK OK Watershed Production system

III OK OK Threat

Threat Threat Threat

OK Threat OK Farm

Threat OK OK

Threat OK Threat

OK Threat OK Field

Threat OK Threat

Figure 10. Threat identification matrix (after Gallopin, 1994).

Conclusion social factors operating at the field, farm, watershed, regional and national scales. Methodologies currently used in sus- The need to ensure that agricultural de- tainability assessment are either uni- velopment is sustainable creates a sig- dimensional (limit assessment to the nificant challenge for land use planners. biophysical, economic or social dimensions), Agriculture, above all other sectors, must uniscaled, or assess the sustainability of cur- meet the challenge to ensure food and rent land use. Planners require ex ante, fibre supplies are secure, while providing multi-dimensional and multi-scaled as- a livelihood for farmers and farm com- sessments. Therefore, we propose a frame- munities. work for integrated sustainability There is no doubt that progress can be assessment that encompasses these factors made in making agriculture more sus- and scales. tainable without waiting for finely tuned The framework can be applied to modify principles, definitions and models. There is the currently used planning approaches, so much that can be done to arrest land either by revising the ‘suitability’ criteria degradation by applying the knowledge and used in land evaluation, or by using the experience we already have. Nevertheless, framework in a strategic environmental improved methodologies are necessary to assessment of land development plans once guide practice. they are prepared. Either way, the frame- From the literature this paper concludes work for agricultural sustainability assess- that agricultural sustainability assessment ment must be woven in to our decision- encompasses biophysical, economic and making processes at the planning stage. Assessing the sustainability of agriculture 35

Coughlan, K. J. (1995). Assessing the Sus- Acknowledgements tainability of Cropping Systems in Pacificland Countries—Biophysical Indicators of Sus- The authors would like to sincerely thank Mr tainability. Paper Prepared for IBSRAM An- Robin Thwaites from the Department of Agri- nual Meeting of Pacificland Network, June culture, The University of Queensland, and Mrs 19–26, 1995. Lae, Papua New Guinea. Jenny Bellamy from CSIRO Tropical Agriculture Dent, D. (1991). Introductory review. In Land Use for their useful comments and suggestions on the Planning Applications. Proceedings of the FAO manuscript and for their much needed en- Expert Consultation, 10–14 December, 1990. couragement in the preparation of this paper. World Soil Resources Report No. 68, pp. 1–9. Rome: FAO. Dobbs, T. L., Becker, D. L. and Taylor, D. C. (1991). Sustainable agriculture policy analysis: South Dakota on-farm case studies. Journal of Farming Systems Research and Extension 2, References 109–124. Douglass, G. K. (1984). The meanings of agri- cultural sustainability. In Agricultural Sus- Altieri, M. A. (1987). : The Scientific tainability in a Changing World Order (G. K. Basis of Alternative Agriculture. Boulder, Co- Douglass, Ed.), pp. 3–30. Boulder, Colorado: lorado: Westview Press. Westview Press. Altieri, M. A. (1989). Agroecology: a new research Dumanski, J. and Pieri, C. (1994). Comparison of and development paradigm for world agri- Available Frameworks for Development of Land culture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and En- Quality Indicators. Paper presented at the Sec- vironment 27, 37–46. ond International Workshop on Development Anon (1990). Sustainable development. In Com- of Land Quality Indicators, 13–16 December mission of Inquiry into the Conservation, Man- 1994. Nairobi: ICRAF. agement and Use of Fraser Island and the Great FAO (1976). A Framework for Land Evaluation. Sandy Region. Final Discussion Paper. Volume FAO Soils Bulletin No. 32. Rome: FAO. 1: Background, pp. 281–297. Brisbane, Queens- FAO (1988). Manual for CROPWAT, A Computer land: Government Printer. Program for IBM-PC Compatibles. Rome: FAO. Blaikie, P. and Brookfield, H. (1987). Land De- FAO (1989). Sustainable Agricultural Production: gradation and Society. Methuen: London and Implications for International Agricultural Re- New York. search. Compiled by the Technical Advisory Brklacich, M., Bryant, C. and Smit, B. (1991). Committee of the CGIAR. FAO Research and Review and appraisal of concept of sustainable Technical Paper No. 4. Rome: FAO. food production systems. Environmental Man- Gallopin, G. C. (1994). Agroecosystem Health: agement 15, 1–14. A Guiding Concept for Agricultural Research. Brookfield, H. and Humphreys, G. S. (1995). Eval- Workshop on Agroecosystem Health. First Inter- uating Sustainable Land Management: Are We national Symposium on Ecosystem Health and on the Right Track?. In Proceedings of the 15th Medicine, June 19, 1994. Ottawa, Canada. International Congress of Soil Science, Goldman, A. (1995). Threats to sustainability in pp. 388–397. Acapulco, Mexico: ICSS. African agriculture: searching for appropriate Bryant, C. R. and Johnston, T. (1992). Farming paradigms. Human Ecology 23, 291–334. in the City’s Countryside. Toronto: University Hansen, J. W. (1996). Is agricultural sus- of Toronto Press. tainability a useful concept? Agricultural Sys- Chidley, T. R. E., Elgy, J. and Antoine, J. (1993). tems 50, 117–143. Computer Systems of Land Resources Ap- Hill, S. B. and MacRae, R. J. (1988). Developing praisal for Agricultural Development. World sustainable agriculture education in Canada. Soil Resources Report No. 72. Rome: Land and Agriculture and Human Values 5, 92–95. Water Development Division, FAO. HMSO (1993). Environmental Evaluation of De- Conway, G. R. (1985a). Agroecosystems analysis. velopment Plans. London: HMSO. Agricultural Administration 20, 31–55. IBSNAT/SMSS (1987). Agrotechnology Transfer. Conway, G. R. (1985b). Rapid Rural Appraisal and Newsletter No. 6. Honolulu, HI: University of Agroecosystem Analysis: A Case Study from Hawaii. Northern Pakistan. Proceedings of the Inter- Ikerd, J. E. (1990). Agriculture’s search for sus- national Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal. tainability and profitability. Journal of Soil and Khon Kaen, Thailand: Khon Kaen University. Water Conservation 45, 18–23. Costanza, R. (1991). The ecological of Janssen, B. H., Guiking, F. C. T., Van der Eijk, sustainability: investing in natural capital. In D., Smalling, E. M. A., Wolf, J. and Van Reuler, Environmentally Sustainable Economic De- H. (1989). QUEFTS. Wageningen, Netherlands: velopment, Building on Brundtland. En- Winand Staring Center. vironment Working Paper No. 46 (R. Goodland, Jodha, N. S. (1990). Sustainability of mountain H. Daly and S. El Serafy, Eds). Washington: agriculture: some imperatives. Entwicklung The World Bank. und Landlicher Raum 3/90, 16–19. 36 C. S. Smith and G. T. McDonald

Kulshreshtha, A. N. and Klein, K. K. (1989). pp. 117–124. St Lucia, Queensland: CSIRO Di- Agricultural drought impact evaluation model: vision of Tropical Crops and Pastures. a systems approach. Agricultural Systems 30, Singh, U. and Thornton, P. K. (1992). Using crop 81–96. models for sustainability and environmental Lal, R., Ghuman, B. and Dhearer, W. (1990). quality assessment. Outlook on Agriculture 21, Sustainability of Different Agricultural Pro- 209–218. duction Systems for a Rainforest Zone of South- Smit, B. and Brklacich, M. (1989). Sustainable ern Nigeria. 14th International Congress on development and the analysis of rural systems. Soil Science, Volume VI, pp. 186–191. Kyoto, Journal of Rural Studies 5, 405–414. Japan. Smit, B. and Smithers, J. (1993). Sustainable Lerohl, M. L. (1991). The sustainability of selected agriculture: interpretations, analyses and pro- prairie crop rotations. Canadian Journal of spects. Canadian Journal of Regional Science Agricultural Economics 39, 667–676. 16, 499–524. Lowrance, R., Hendrix, P. F. and Odum, E. P. Smyth, A. J. and Dumanski, J. (1993). FESLM: (1986). A hierarchical approach to sustainable an international framework for evaluating sus- agriculture. American Journal of Alternative tainable land management. World Soil Re- Agriculture 1, 169–173. sources Report No. 73. Rome: FAO. McCormack, E. (1986). Soil potential index (SPI). Spedding, C. R. W. (1979). An Introduction to In Proceedings of the International Workshop Agricultural Systems. Essex: Applied Science on Quantified Land Evaluation Procedures, Publishers. Publication No. 6 (K. J. Beek, P. A. Burrough Stenholm, C. W. and Waggoner, D. B. (1990). Low- and E. McCormack, Eds). Enschede, Neth- input, sustainable agriculture: myth or erlands: ITC. method? Journal of Soil and Water Con- McLagan, P. A. (1980). Competency models. servation 45, 13–17. Training and Development Journal 34, 22–26. Stockle, C. O., Papendick, R. I., Saxton, K. E., Monteith, J. L. (1990). Can sustainability be Campbell, G. S. and van Evert, F. K. (1994). A quantified? Indian Journal of Dryland Ag- framework for evaluating the sustainability of ricultural Research and Development 5, 1–5. agricultural production systems. American OECD (1993). OECD Core Set of Indicators for Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9, 45–50. Environmental Performance Reviews. A Syn- Svendsen, M. (1990). Sustainability in irrigated thesis Report by the Group on the State of the agriculture. Entwicklung und Landlicher Environment. Paris: OECD. Raum 3/90, 12–15. Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. B. Taylor, D. C., Mohammed, Z. A., Shamsudin, M. (1989). Blueprint for a Green Economy. London: A., Mohayidin, M. G. and Chiew, E. F. C. (1993). Earthscan. Creating a farmer sustainability index: a Ma- Pearce, D., Turner, R. K., O’Riordan, T., Adger, laysian case study. American Journal of Al- N., Atkinson, G., Brisson, I., Brown, K., Du- ternative Agriculture 8, 175–184. bourg, R., Fankhauser, S., Jordan, A., Mad- Thampapillai, D. J. and Anderson, J. R. (1994). dison, D., Moran, D. and Powell, J. (1993). A review of the socio-economic analysis of soil Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable De- degradation problems for developed and de- velopment. London: Earthscan. veloping countries. Review of Marketing and Pesek, J. (1994). Historical perspective. In Sus- Agricultural Economics 62, 291–311. tainable Agriculture Systems (J. L. Hatfield and Therivel (1993). Strategic Environmental Assess- D. L. Karlen, Eds), pp. 1–19. London: Lewis ment. London: Earthscan. Publishers. Torquebiau, E. (1992). Are tropical agroforestry Roberts, B. (1995). The Quest for Sustainable gardens sustainable? Agriculture and Human Agriculture and Land Use. Sydney, Australia: Values 9, 11–19. UNSW Press. UNEP (1995). Environmental Impact Assessment SCA (1991). Sustainable Agriculture. Report of Good Practice Guidelines. Nairobi: UNEP. the Working Group on Sustainable Agriculture. Van Diepen, C. A., Rappalst, C., Wolf, J. and SCA Technical Report Series No. 36. Australia: Van Keulen, H. (1988). CWFS Crop Growth CSIRO. Simulation Model WOFOST. Wageningen, SCARM (1993). Sustainable Agriculture: Track- Netherlands: Center for World Food Studies. ing the Indicators for Australia and New Zea- WCED (1990). Our Common Future. Australian land. Standing Committee on Agriculture and edition. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Resource Management Report No. 51. Aus- Williams, G. D. V., Fautley, A., Jones, K., Stewart, tralia: Commonwealth of Australia. R. and Wheaton, E. (1988). Estimating effects Shaw, R., Cogle, L., Lait, R., Doherty, J., Stone, of climatic change on agriculture in Sas- J. and Brebber, L. (1994). The role of decision katchewan, Canada. In The Impact of Climatic support systems for ecologically sustainable Variationson Agriculture, Volume 1, Assessment productivity in the sugar industry. In Research in Cool Temperate and Cold Regions (M. L. and Modelling Approaches to Assess Sugarcane Parry et al., Eds). Dordrecht: Reidel Co. Production Opportunities and Constraints. Wood, C. (1995). Environmental Impact Assess- Workshop Proceeding, University of Queens- ment: A Comparative Evaluation. London: land, St Lucia (M. J. Robertson, Ed.), Longmans. Assessing the sustainability of agriculture 37

World Bank (1992). EIA Sourcebook. Washington: Young, M. D. (1985). Pastoral land tenure options World Bank. for Australia. Australian Rangeland Journal 7, Yizengaw, T. and Verheye, W. (1995). Application 43–46. of computer captured knowledge in land evalu- Yunlong, C. and Smit, B. (1994). Sustainability ation, using ALES in Central Ethiopia. Geode- in Agriculture: A General Review. Agriculture, rma 66, 297–311. Ecosystems and Environment 49, 299–307.