How do we know the extent of impact agriculture has on the environment, or the effects of shifting practices and technology on agriculture? This is an especially important question when there are certain standards to be met, and there are many, as we have discussed previously on the blog. With the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD) taking place last week, questions of impact are very timely.
Field to Market is an initiative that joins producers, agribusinesses, food companies, and conservation organizations committed to seeking out new opportunities in the agricultural supply chain to improve environmental quality, agricultural productivity, and human well-being. Some of the world’s largest companies, including Wal-Mart, Kellogg, Cargill and Coca-Cola, are members, along with conservation organizations like World Resources Institute (a Landscapes Initiative Co-Organizer), the World Wildlife Fund, and the Environmental Defense Fund. One of Field to Market’s primary goals is to develop and test metrics and tools at a range of scales to measure the environmental, economic, social, and health outcomes of agriculture in the United States.
This year’s report demonstrates how the production of six primary crops – corn, cotton, potato, rice, soybeans, and wheat – has become more efficient in terms of yield and resource use in the past thirty years. The report is broken down by type of indicators. Part I analyzes environmental indicators (land use, soil erosion, irrigation water applied, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions) in terms of resource use per area and production. Part II analyzes socioeconomic indicators (debt/asset ratio, returns above variable costs, crop production contribution to national and state gross domestic product, non-fatal injury, fatality, and labor hours). Each section also highlights additional relevant indicators and areas for improvement.
Such national scale indicators of agricultural sustainability and systematic monitoring by technical experts, coupled with commitments from supply chain participants and producer groups, can support standard setting across the agriculture sector, while also helping to identify local or crop-specific priorities.
Meanwhile, the process of establishing metrics for sustainability impact assessment is itself often fraught with conflict. Decisions about which indicators to measure, establishing baselines from which to conclude “improvement”, and setting the schedule and responsibility for monitoring and measurement can have significant influence on whether sustainability programs and standards actually achieve the improvements in environmental and socioeconomic quality that they claim they will.
For more information about how impact assessment is taking shape around the world, and how important the process of determining impact assessment procedures is, take a look at this blog post on impact assessment for eco-certifications and standards.
Comments are closed.