• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:A:Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment:Vol77.Issue1-2.Jan2000:

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2017

Membagikan "Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:A:Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment:Vol77.Issue1-2.Jan2000:"

Copied!
12
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

Nature and landscape production potentials of organic types of

agriculture: a check of evaluation criteria and parameters in two Tuscan

farm-landscapes

Roberto Rossi

a,∗

, Dionisio Nota

b

aRegione Toscana, Department of Land and Environmental Policy, Via di Novoli 26 -I-50127 Florence, Italy bRegione Toscana, Department of Economic Development, Via di Novoli 26 -I-50127 Florence, Italy

Accepted 19 July 1999

Abstract

Criteria and parameters for the evaluation of sound rural landscapes presented in the list worked out in the EU-concerted action ‘The nature and landscape production potentials of sustainable/organic types of agriculture’ (third version, November 1995) are checked in two Tuscan organic farms. The first farm is located in the landscape system of the Coastal Plains in the Province of Grosseto, southern Tuscany. The second one is located in the landscape system of the Pliocene Hills in the Province of Florence, central Tuscany. Referring to the ‘Checklist for sustainable landscape management’ as presented by Stobbelaar and Van Mansvelt (1994), some comments are given on the criteria and parameters proposed and on the method used for computing values in the evaluation (see Tellarini and Caporali, 2000). The evaluation that results confirms that organic farms in both areas add a considerable number of values to the surrounding landscape, ranging from a clean environment, a diverse agro-ecosystem, multiple social and economic functions and a coherently diversified landscape. ©2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Evaluation; Landscape; Landscape development; Organic farm; Tuscany

1. Introduction

In this paper, criteria and parameters for the eval-uation of sustainable rural landscapes, as worked out in the EU-concerted action ‘The nature and landscape production potentials of sustainable/organic types of agriculture’ (Stobbelaar and Van Mansvelt, 1994; Van Mansvelt and Stobbelaar, 1997), are checked on their feasibility in an assessment of two Tuscan farm-landscapes.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-055-438-3699; fax:+39-055-438-3898.

The mentioned set of criteria and parameters for sustainable landscape management has been drawn up as a tool for many purposes. For example, it can be used as a framework for farm design, for farm develop-ment and managedevelop-ment, and also as a checklist for eval-uating the sustainability of farms and their potential to produce nature and landscape values as demanded by society (see Van Mansvelt and Van der Lubbe, 1998). In the exercise reported on here, the practical appli-cability of the list of criteria and parameters, resulting from the work carried out in the first two years of the concerted action, is discussed and an evaluation of the farm-landscapes is done, using a simple criterium for computing values in the evaluation.

(2)

exercise (see Tables 1–6) draw upon the third ver-sion of the list of parameters (November 1995), re-sulting from meetings in Denmark and Spain in the summer of 1995. The Tables 3–6. (economy, soci-ology [g-type disciplines], psychology and physiog-nomy/cultural geography [a-type disciplines]) have been used without any change; whereas some varia-tions are proposed for the Tables 1 and 2 (environment and ecology, theb-type disciplines).

The assessment of the farm-landscape values, as reported on here, has been carried out by a ‘reduced’ team of two b scientists: a physical geographer and an agronomist. No measurements have been taken for any of the criteria and parameters, which have been considered as points of reference in a rapid evaluation by experts. In Tables 1 to 6 some notes refer to remarks regarding the parameters listed in Section 3, and values are assigned to parameters and criteria as explained in Section 4.

2. Schematic description of the farm-landscapes

For the evaluation (see Tables 1 to 7), two organic farms, which were already described in a former pa-per presented in the second plenary meeting of the concerted action (Rossi et al., 1997), have been con-sidered. The landscapes of the organic farms are com-pared to the landscapes of their non-organically man-aged surroundings; not to specific non-organic farms. Here only schematic descriptions of the La Selva farm and Poggio Antico farm are given. In Rossi et al., 1997 they are presented in more detail.

2.1. La Selva farm

La Selva farm is an organic farm located in the land-scape system of the Coastal Plains, in the Province of Grosseto, in southern Tuscany (Fig. 1). The land-scape subsystem where the farm is located is formed by recent and terraced alluvial deposits and old eo-lian dune deposits. The area is subject to moderate phenomena of soil and higher water-table salinization hazard partly due to over-exploitation of deep ground water for irrigating.

La Selva farm is a 100% biological farm (Natur-land) with a high level of capital input, which has been

lized agricultural surface is 90 ha.

The land use of La Selva farm consists of a rota-tion of fodder crops (40–42 ha), cereals (20–21 ha), vegetables (rotating summer and winter vegetables and medicinal plants: 20–21 ha); vineyards, orchards and olive groves (totally 8 ha); woodland (coppice, 3.5 ha); unproductive land (buildings, farm yards, roads, hedgerows, ponds, etc., 1.5 ha). Hedgerows are sufficiently present, specially as windbreaks. Cows and sheep are specifically kept for the production of manure. In the farm there are artesian wells, with problems of salinization of ground water; 25–30 ha are irrigated each year (in rotation) with drip irrigation and low and high intensity sprinkler irrigation.

For the fertilization there is the use of manure and green manure; there is also the complete re-utilization of by-products by means of pressing all plant remains for the production of manure.

There is a high level of mechanization and minimum tillage is adopted without turning the clods.

In the surroundings, differently from La Selva farm, there is mainly a monoculture of annual crops, virtu-ally without any woods and hedgerows and no live-stock is raised. Besides, in the area, mechanization and the use of chemical fertilization is high and soil conservation practices are almost absent.

2.2. Poggio Antico farm

Poggio Antico farm is an organic farm located in the landscape system of the Pliocene Hills, in the Province of Florence, in central Tuscany (Fig. 1).

(3)

Criteria and parametersb La Selva La Selva Poggio P. Antico

(1. Environment) farm surroundings Antico farm surroundings

landscapec landscapec landscapec landscapec

Clean environment: (+) (−) (+) (−?)

(Fertile) soil conservations (++) (− −) (++) (− −?)

Manure quality:c/n ratio ++? − −? ++? − −?

Soil erosion: (1) (++) (−) (+) (− −)

Actual erosion traces on the farm (rills and gullies, ++ − + − −

soil deposition in slower parts of fields)

Silting up of rivers and canals (on-site and off-site) + − − + − −

Floodings (off-site) ± − ± −

Other types of soil degradation: (2) (+) (−) (+) (±?)

Loss of structure of topsoil (increase of bulk density; crusts formation) ++ −? + ±?

Soil salinity (soil/water conductivity) ±? −?

(Clean) water conservation (3) (±?) (−?) (+?) (±?)

Ground water quality (4) ±? −? +? +?

Ground water×mg n/l ? ? ? ?

Ground water salinity (conductivity; s.a.r. Sodium adsorbtion ratio) (5) −? −?

Surface water quality (4) ± −? +? −?

Nitrate levels in surface water (6) ? ? ? ?

Phosphate levels in surface water (6) ? −? ? ?

Surface water salinity (conductivity; s.a.r.) (5) (±?) ±?

(Unpolluted) air conservation (++) (−?) (++) (±?)

Pesticide output ++ −? ++ −?

Ammonia output ++? −? ++? −?

Smell ++ +? ++ ++?

Presence of indicator lichens and plant species (7) ? ? ? ?

Wild-fire prevention (8)

Fire-resistant species ± ±?

Adoption of fire-control practices ± ±?

Food/fiber sufficiency (on farm or local level) and quality (++) (±?) (++) (+?) Minimally per countries’ regional level of food production ++ ++? ++ ++?

Absence of (health-stressing) additives ++ − − ++ ±?

Taste (9) ++ + ++ ++?

Carrying capacity (++) (− −) (++) (− −?)

Balanced soil organic matter % for the total crop rotation ++ − −? ++ − −?

Ratio annual crops area/polyannual crops area (10) + − − ++ − −?

Ratio nitrogen input area/arable area (nitrogen input area = + − − + − −

area where nitrogen-fixing crops are cultivated) (10)

Reproduction of vegetation/land unit indicator species ? ? ? ?

for overgrazing and undergrazing (11)

Resource efficiency (++?) (− −?) (++?) (–?)

Nutrient balance on farm level ++ − −? ++ − −?

Nutrient balance on field level and indicator species (ellenberg) (12) ? ? ? ? Internal recycling of external inputs (nutrient and/or chemicals) ++? − −? ++? − −?

Idem for energy (input/biomass output) +? − −? ++ − −?

Efficient water management + −? + ±?

Site adapted production system (++) (−?) (++) (−?)

Plant species +? ? ++? +?

Crops ++ ±? + ±?

Husbandry ++ ++?

Other plantings ++ ? ++ ?

Tillage (types of, timing) ++ −? ++ − −?

Manuring (amounts, timing) ++ −? ++ −?

aRefers to main aspects of the Environment (using the 1995 version of the Table). bThe numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3.

cRelative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;± neutral/intermediate; negative; − −very negative; ( ) subtotal per criterium,

(4)

Criteria and parametersb La Selva La Selva Poggio Antico P. Antico

(2. Ecology) farm surroundings farm surroundings

landscapec landscapec landscapec landscapec

Biodiversity (+) (− −?) (++) (+?)

Species(flora/fauna), with minimal population (?) (?) (?) (?)

Minimal standards for species diversity per biotope (13) ? ? ? ?

Elected taxa (land use-type dependent) (14) ? ? ? ?

Biotopes (+) (− −?) (++) (+?)

Minimal standards for biotopes per farmtype ? ? ? ?

(in relation to potential-cultural-vegetation) (13)

Number (14) + − −? ++ +?

Ecosystems, with minimal functioning (15) ? ? ? ?

Ecological coherence: (+?) (− −?) (++?) (±?)

On site, vertical coherence (?) (?) (?) (?)

Site-related indicator species ? ? ? ?

In the landscape, horizontal coherence (+) (− −?) (++) (+?)

Connectivity within species/biotopes-webbing + − −? ++ +?

In time, cyclical coherences (+?) (− −?) (++?) (+?)

Self reproduction of species and biotopes (full lifecycles) ±? − − +? ±?

Season compliancy (16) ++ ±? ++ ++?

Appropriate decomposition is organised (not to destroy ? ? ? ?

the system’s vital functions) (17)

Appropriate succession is organised: ecosystems are ? ? ? ?

allowed to ‘grow’ (accumulation of ecocapital) (17)

Eco-regulation (++) (− −?) (++) (−?)

Ecological pest and disease control: degree of presence of ++ − −? ++ −? pests and diseases without chemical intervention and

degree of activity of the farmer for the ecological control (18)

Per crop and pest minimal two predators present in the system (19) ? ? ? ?

Animal welfare (husbandry) (20) (+) (++)

Shelter against the adverse weather (sun, wind, rain) (21) + ++

Room for natural behaviour (21) ++ ++

aRefers to main aspects of the Ecology (using the 1995 version of the Table). bThe numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3.

cRelative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;± neutral/intermediate; negative;− −very negative; ( ) subtotal per criterium,

averaged over the parameters of that criterium.

Poggio Antico farm is a cooperative 100% biody-namic farm (Demeter) that has been active for about 12 years and in which the members of the cooperative farm live in community. The total surface is 102 ha; the utilized agricultural surface is 71 ha.

The land use of Poggio Antico farm consists of: arable crops and fodder crops in rotation (45 ha in to-tal); olive groves (17 ha); vineyards (9 ha); woodland (coppice, 26 ha); shrubland (broom, 3 ha); unproduc-tive land (buildings, farm yards, roads, hedgerows, ponds, etc., 2 ha).

Livestock is represented by 40 cows (dairy breed), 20 sheep (for wool), 12 horses (draught and riding horses). One well, located in the upper part of the farm

land, is used for human and animal consumption; there are also two very small artificial ponds, in the lower part.

For the fertilization, there is a complete re-utilization of by-products: composted manure; stubble preserv-ing, with the addition of liquid manure; green manure. There is a moderate level of mechanization, using animal traction too, and minimum tillage is adopted without turning the clods.

(5)

Criteria and parametersb La Selva La Selva Poggio Antico P. Antico

(3. Economy) farm surroundings farm surroundings

landscapeclandscapec landscapec landscapec

Subsistence on material level (welfare) (++?) (+?) (+?) (+?)

Family survival (cash income/year—minimum income of region/ ++ +? + +? year—minimum income of region/year—year’s full labour)

Return of invested capital ++? ? +? ?

Own capital as % from total farm investment ++? ? +? ?

% Of farm income paid to banks ? ? ? ?

Number of people earning income (per 100 ha of the farm surface) (22) + ? +? ?

Agricultural income (per 100 ha) (22) ++ +? + +?

Target/objective of the farm’s income (who takes the profit/carries

The losses) ? ? ? ?

Direct eu-type of incomes (23) +? ? +? ?

Unpaid income (food, fuel, housing, ...) + ? + ?

Overflow of urban/industrial profits to rural-area-support preferred over vice versa ? ? ? ?

Green economy (24) (?) (?) (?) (?)

Social costs (unpaid for by the farmer should be low) ? ? ? ?

Polluter payments (farmer payed, can help to compensate for Social costs) ? ? ? ? Social benefits (unpaid for by the society; to be rewarded by direct payments ? ? ? ? under conditions preventing contra-productivity/misuse)

Economic base in agriculture and/or forestry (+?) (?) (+?) (?)

Financial contribution to regional econo‘my (buying and selling

commodities and services) +? +? +? +?

Costs invested to make profit (=agric. income; aim for cost-efficiency), ? ? ? ? to be specified per region (soil price/quality, infrastructure, etc.)

Income diversification on farm (elevation, processing, adding value on the farm +? ? +? ? can increase profitability)

Number of people living on the farm and earning money in the region (more +? ? +? ? people living in the rural area)

aRefers to main aspects of the Economy (using the 1995 version of the Table). bThe numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3.

cRelative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;

± neutral/intermediate;− negative; − −very negative; ( ) subtotal per criterium, averaged over the parameters of that criterium.

valley-bottoms. Croplands here are mixed to wood-land and shrubwood-land as in Poggio Antico farm, but no livestock is raised. Furthermore, the mechanization is high and soil conservation practices are almost ab-sent. The use of chemical fertilization and pesticides is moderate on the hills and high in the valley-bottoms.

3. Comments about the proposed criteria and parameters

First, a general remark regarding the parameters of the list as used can be made: it seems necessary to find more practical parameters; several still appear to be rather theoretical and difficult to apply, but probably this opinion is partly due to the fact that in our panel

the disciplinary competences were incomplete. Apart from this general comment, here follows a list of more specific remarks (the numbers refer to Tables 1–6):

(6)

reflect-Criteria and parametersb La Selva La Selva Poggio landscape P. Antico

(4. Sociology) farm surroundings Antico surroundings

landscapec landscapec farmc landscapec

Well-being of people (+) (?) (++) (?)

changes in number of people living on the farm’s land (100 ha) (22) + ? ++ ?

farmer’s education ++ ? ++ ?

farms’ successors ? ? ? ?

followers of the farms example + ? + ?

professional excursions to the farm + ? + ?

Local participation and responsibility (±?) (?) (+?) (?)

membership regional councils ? ? ? ?

idem farmers organisations (cooperatives) ? ? ++ ?

organising outlets (professional training) (25) + ? ++ ?

off-farm income (=working in the region) ? ? ? ?

social support for the farm (labour, finances, other) ± ? + ?

cooperation with NGOs (nature protection, environment, others) ? ? ? ?

consumer/participation groups +? ? +? ?

Accessibility of the landscape (+?) (+?) (++?) (+?)

general excursions to the farm (consumers, locals, NGOs) + ? + ?

roads through the land (foothpaths) ± ? + ?

hunting, fishing, jogging, camping (ao) + +? ++ +?

self-picking ± ? ±? ?

on-farm sales ++ ? ++ ?

Awareness raising (+?) (?) (++) (?)

Questions to the management on:

the natural environment and natural resources, lifecycles + ? ++ ? and ecological webbing)

the social environment (links with consumers, urbans, ++ ? + ?

tourists, colleagues, etc., up to global scale)

the cultural environment (perceptions of aesthetics, paradigms, religions) +? ? ++ ?

the willingness to act (accepting responsibilities) ++? ? ++ ?

aRefers to main aspects of the Sociology (using the 1995 version of the Table). bThe numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3.

cRelative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;

± neutral/intermediate;− negative; − −very negative; ( ) subtotal per criterium, averaged over the parameters of that criterium.

ing effects which can be surveyed very easily: ‘ac-tual erosion traces on the farm (rills and gullies, soil deposition in lower parts of fields)’, ‘silting up of rivers and canals (on-site and off-site)’ and ‘floodings (off-site)’, even if the last one does not reflect only soil erosion.

2. ‘Soil erosion’ is not the only form of ‘soil degra-dation’. We suggest to introduce this last item too and its most relevant parameters: ‘loss of structure of topsoil (increase of bulk density; crust forma-tion)’ and ‘soil salinity (soil water conductivity)’. In some cases, other types of degradation are rel-evant besides those proposed here.

3. For ‘water conservation’ it is useful to distin-guish between the conditions of ground water and

those of surface water. As it has been remarked above, the proposed parameters ‘number of cattle units/ha’ and ‘winter cover’ do not reflect effects. 4. Beside other parameters, it seems useful to also maintain more generic parameters like ‘water quality’ because it is not always possible to use the more specific ones.

5. In many dry coastal areas ‘salinity’ and ‘saliniza-tion of ground water’ are very important issues. 6. For the reason explained in point 4, it seems useful

to rescue the parameters ‘nitrate levels in surface water’ and ‘phosphate levels in the water’, which were included in former versions of the list. 7. For the criterium ‘(clean) air conservation’,

(7)

Criteria and parametersb La Selva La Selva Poggio Antico P. Antico

(5. Psychology) farm surrounding farm surroundings

landscapec landscapec landscapec landscapec

Aesthetics

Visual elements (mind the exposure, weather, daytime, season) (+) (− −) (++) (++)

Size, context and structure + − − ++ ++

Shape and texture + − − ++ ++

Light and colours + − ++ ++

Contrasts (in the above) + − − ++ ++

Variation, chaos and order (in the above) ++ − − ++ ++

Smells (sort of smells, ranging between) (++) (+?) (++) (++?)

‘Pure-well balanced-smells’ like flowers, herbs, hay, straw, soil, + ±? ++ + litter, humus, farm-yard-manure

‘Stinking’-sharp, penetrating-like: intensive animal production, ++ ++? ++ ++? liquid manure, ammonia, sulphur-dioxide, exhaust fumes

Smells (strength and continuity of smells, ranging between) (++) (++?) (++) (++?)

Temporal gusts (25) ? ? ? ?

Continuous stress ++ ++? ++ ++?

Sounds (sort of sounds, ranging between) (+) (±) (++) (+)

‘Silence’: livestock, birds, wind in trees and crops, water (streams, waves) + ±? ++ +

‘Noise’: industry, traffic, windmills + +? ++ +

Sounds (strength and continuity of the sounds, ranging between) (++) (++?) (++) (++?)

Temporal gusts (26) ? ? ? ?

Continuous stress ++ ++? ++ ++?

Subjective identity (+) (− −?) (++) (+?)

Impression of ‘genius loci’ + − − ++ +

Legibility/readability/recognisability (common history of local nature and culture)± − −? ++ ++?

Inspiration for personal involvement/participation ++ − −? ++ +?

Options/accessibility for participation + ? + ?

Actual participation (see also sociology: local participation and responsibility) + ? + ?

aRefers to main aspects of the Psychology (using the 1995 version of the Table). bThe numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3.

cRelative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;

± neutral/intermediate;− negative; − −very negative; ( ) subtotal per criterium, averaged over the parameters of that criterium.

was meant to refer to lichens sensible to air pol-lution, we would prefer ‘presence of indicator lichens and/or plant species’; this parameter, any-how, can be used only when data are available because indicators of specific pollutants are mon-itored.

8. Especially in the Mediterranean regions, wild-fires have very important impacts on the ecology and the economy of farm-landscapes. We suggest the introduction of the criterium ‘wild-fire preven-tion’ and of the parameters ‘fire-resistant species’ and adoption of fire-control practices’.

9. For the criterium ‘food/fiber sufficiency and quality’, we think it is important to add the parameter ‘taste’ to the proposed ‘absence of (health-stressing) additives’: it is not enough for

a product to be healthy, it should to be tasty too. Not always a genuine food is also a good one (apart from preconceived opinions)!

10. In the concerted action the criterium ‘carrying ca-pacity’ has a wider meaning: the maximum level whereto a natural system can produce without being destroyed. We suggest the introduction of the parameters ‘ratio annual crops area/polyannual crops area’ and ‘ratio nitrogen input area/arable area’ which are based on the principle that consid-ers polyannual fodder crops and nitrogen-fixing crops as influencing positively soil fertility. 11. Even if the ‘carrying capacity of pastures’ is a

(8)

Criteria and parametersb La Selva La Selva Poggio P. Antico

(6. Physiognomy and cultural geography) farm surroundings Antico farm surroundings landscapec landscapec landscapec landscapec

Objective identity (+) (±?) (++) (+)

Identity of the farm in the landscape (+) (− −) (++) (+)

Geo/ecological elements ++ − − ++ +

Historical elements − − ++ ++?

Typical elements ++ − − ++ +

Identity of the landscape in the region (27) (+) (+) (+) (+)

Geo/ecological elements ++ ++ ++ ++

Historical elements − − + +

Typical elements + + + +

Landscape structure

Diversity of landscape elements, landscape patterns, land-units and + − − ++ + landscape types (coinciding with the vertical coherence between

land use and the (a) biotic factors)

Recognisability of coherence between landscape components (+?) (− −) (++?) (+?)

Functional relationships + − − ++ +?

Historical relationships − − − + +?

Spatial relationships (+) (−?) (++) (+?)

Horizontal relationships ++ − −? ++ ++?

Vertical relationships ± − −? + ±?

Temporal relationships ++? ? ++ ?

Use of local building material ± ±? + +?

Historic continuity (±) (− −?) (++) (+?)

Persistent structures ± − −? ++ ++?

Persistent elements ± ±? ++ +?

Persistent patterns ± − −? + +?

aRefers to main aspects of the Physiognomy and Cultural geography (using the 1995 version of the Table). bThe numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3.

cRelative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive;

± neutral/intermediate;− negative; − −very negative; ( ) subtotal per criterium, averaged over the parameters of that criterium.

we suggest to maintain the parameter ‘reproduc-tion of vegeta‘reproduc-tion/land unit indicator species for overgrazing and undergrazing’.

12. For the criterium ‘resource efficiency’, it seems useful to rescue the possibility to use ‘indicator species’ for the parameter ‘nutrient balance on field level’, when it is possible.

13. Regarding the criterium ‘biodiversity’, even if the identification of ‘minimal standards’ for ‘species diversity per biotope’ and for ‘biotopes per farm-type’ is correct, it does not seem to be very viable in practice because of the very great variability of situations.

14. To help in overcoming what is remarked above, we suggest to rescue the parameters ‘selected taxa (land use-type dependent)’ and ‘number’ (of biotopes).

15. It is not clear how to practically use the cri-terium/parameter ‘ecosystems, with minimal functioning’.

16. Regarding the criterium ‘ecological coherence in time, cyclical coherence’, the meaning of the pa-rameter ‘daytime/season/year (‘s & age) compli-ancy’ proposed in the former list is not completely clear: we suggest to use simply ‘season compli-ancy’.

17. For the same criterium, it is not clear how to prac-tically use the parameters ‘appropriate decompo-sition is organized’ and ‘appropriate succession is organized’.

(9)

Table 7

Final rating of the farm-landscape performances of the landscapes of the two organic farms and their non-organically managed surrounding landscapesa

Criteria La Selva La Selva Poggio P. Antico

farm surroundings Antico farm surroundings landscapeb landscapeb landscapeb landscapeb

1. Environment ++ −? ++ −?

Clean environment (+) (−) (+) (−?)

(fertile) Soil conservation ++ − − ++ − −?

(clean ) Water conservation ±? −? +? ±?

(unpolluted) Air conservation ++ −? ++ ±?

Wild-fire prevention ± ±?

Food/fiber sufficiency (on farm or local level) and quality ++ ±? ++ +?

Carrying capacity ++ − − ++ − −?

Resource efficiency ++? − −? ++? − −?

Site adapted production system ++ −? ++ −?

2. Ecology + − − ++ ±?

Biodiversity: (+) (− −?) (++) (+?)

Species(flora/fauna), with minimal population ? ? ? ?

Biotopes + − −? ++ +?

Ecosystems, with minimal functioning (15) ? ? ? ?

Ecological coherence: (+?) (− −?) (++?) (±?)

On site, vertical coherence ? ? ? ?

In the landscape, horizontal coherence + − −? ++ +?

In time, cyclical coherences +? −? +? +?

Eco-regulation ++ − −? ++ −?

Animal welfare (husbandry) + ++

3. Economy ++? +? +? +?

Subsistence on material level (welfare) ++? +? +? +?

Green economy ? ? ? ?

Economic base in agriculture and/or forestry +? ? +? +

4. Sociology +? +? ++? +?

Well-being of people + ? ++ ?

Local participation and responsibility ±? ? +? ?

Accessibility of the landscape +? +? ++? +?

Awareness raising +? ? ++ ?

5. Psychology + − ++ ++?

Aesthetics

Visual elements + − − ++ ++

Smells ++ +? ++ ++?

Sounds ++ +? ++ ++?

Subjective identity + − −? ++ +?

6. Physiognomy & cultural geography + − −? ++ +?

Objective identity + ±? ++ +

Landscape structure + − − ++ +

Recognisability of coherence between landscape components +? − − ++? +?

Historic continuity ± − −? ++? +?

Total evaluation + −? ++ +?

aThe averaged scorings per criterium are presented here for the Tables 1–6, and averaged for all the criteria of the six Tables under

‘Total evaluation’ in the bottom row. This shows the indication that each organic farm performs more sustainably than in the non-organic farming in its surrounding. It also indicates that they may perform more sustainable independent from the actual landscape system.

(10)

Fig. 1. Location of the two checked farms within the Tuscan landscape systems (Italy). La Selva farm (in subsystem PC6 of the landscape system of Coastal Plains). Poggio Antico farm (in subsystem CP5 of the landscape system of Pliocene Hills).

19. The parameter ‘per crop and pest minimal two predators present in the system’, even if it is cor-rect, does not seem very viable in practice. 20. About the criterium ‘animal welfare (husbandry)’,

it is necessary to recall and select the ‘relevant standards’ proposed by NGOs.

21. The parameters ‘shelter against the adverse weather (sun, wind, rain)’ and ‘room for natural behaviour’ seem to be the most relevant ones for this issue.

22. Regarding the main aspect ‘economy’, many pa-rameters are indicated divided by ‘100 ha’. In many situations the farm size is much smaller: it is better to measure ‘per hectare’.

23. For the criterium ‘subsistence on material level (welfare)’, it is not clear wether the parameter ‘di-rect EU-type of incomes’ has to be taken in a pos-itive or in a negative way. On the other hand, the issue of the payment of ‘environmental services’ of sustainable agriculture (particularly in marginal areas) should be seen as one of the final results of the evaluation.

for the criterium ‘green economy’.

25. For the criterium ‘local participation and respon-sibility’, in the parameter ‘organising outlets’ we include the organisation of ‘professional training’. 26. For the main aspect ‘psychology’, the meaning of

the parameter ‘temporal gusts’ is not clear. 27. For the main aspect ‘physiognomy/cultural

geog-raphy’, it is not completely clear how to use the criterium/parameter ‘identity of the landscape in the region’: in fact in the examples taken for the evaluation, when you have more than one land-scape type in the same region, each one seems to score the same degree of identity.

4. The method for computing values used in the evaluation

The goal of selected criteria and parameters is to allow ‘relative’evaluations among farm-landscapes within a certain geographical situation, and to address efforts towards the most appropriate solution. The goal should not be to support (financial or otherwise) merely a ‘beautiful’ landscape instead of an ‘ugly’ landscape, but to support the appropriate solution for the sustainable management of any kind of landscape. Wether beauty and sustainability on the one hand and non-sustainability and non-beauty on the other go together or not remains as yet open for research.

For this reason, we think it is not yet relevant to rank different farms with respect to all the criteria presented in the six Tables. It may be sufficient to develop a tool that allows the comparison of a farm to be ‘environmentally and economically acceptable’ one for the same situation.

For our rapid assessment we decided to avoid nu-merical values, and used a scoring method that is clearly ‘qualitative’, namely marking: ++ for very pos-itive; + for pospos-itive;±for neutral;for negative and − −for very negative performance of the farm per rameter of the Tables 1 to 6. No score is given to pa-rameters that were not relevant for the particular farm situation. A question mark (?) is used when no infor-mation was available or when the rating was deemed uncertain.

(11)

final evaluation is still open. For a wider discussion of this aspect we refer to Andreoli et al. (1998), or Andreoli and Tellarini (2000)

In this exercise, we assume that all criteria have the same weight and we added the scores per parameter per criterium to find average values for the all criteria, and subsequently for each criterium per major topic, and so on for the final assessment per farm for all Tables.

In Tables 1–6 criteria and parameters relevant for each main topic of the evaluation are assessed. Table 7 contains the recapitulation of the assessment and the final evaluation.

5. Conclusions

The main aim of the concerted action was to pro-duce a tool that allows a comprehensive (holistic) in-terdisciplinary evaluation of farms and their nature and landscape production potential. To this end a system of six sets of criteria was developed, covering all rele-vant aspects of farm-landscapes, to be assessed to war-rant sustainable landscape management. The six were environmental studies, ecology, economy, sociology, psychology, physiognomy and cultural geography.

The analysis of the assessment Tables 1–6 presented here shows that the organic farms in both areas do add a considerable number of values to the surrounding non-organically managed landscape.

In La Selva farm the main problems of non-sus-tainability as occurring in the surrounding landscape are overcome. This relatively positive performance ap-pears in the majority of the criteria assessed: it seems a consistent feature of the organic farming system.

The criteria with positive scores for the checked farms are: for environmental studies (Table 1): fer-tile soil conservation, unpolluted air conservation, food/fibre sufficiency and quality, carrying capac-ity, resource efficiency and site adapted production system. For ecology (Table 2): biotopes, horizontal coherence in the landscape and eco-regulation. For psychology (Table 5): visual elements and subjec-tive identity. For physiognomy/cultural geography (Table 6): landscape structure and recognisability of coherence between landscape.

In the surroundings of La Selva farm there is a strong trivialization of the landscape, which in many places becomes a flat homogeneous monoculture. In the surrounding farms, as soil conservation practices are not adopted, more soil erosion occurs. The high level use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in the surrounding farms causes more pollution of the water bodies.

In Poggio Antico farm also shows a better per-formance than the surrounding area, even though in this Pliocene Hills area the general situation is better than in the Coastal Plain and almost sustainable under non-organic farming practices.

The criteria that best show the different perfor-mances are: for environment (Table 1): the conser-vation of fertile soil and unpolluted air, the respect for the carrying capacity, the resource efficiency and site adapted character of the production system. For ecology (Table 2): the eco-regulation of pests and diseases.

In the surroundings of Poggio Antico farm there is also a certain trivialization of the landscape but, at the macro scale, the landscape is characterized by a fair degree of complexity and, partly, of biological diver-sity. In the non-organic farms of the surroundings, the soil erosion is notably higher. The erosion is particu-larly remarkable for the off-site effects of siltation of rivers, canals and floods. The farms in the surround-ings do also cause a higher degree of pollution. The off-site pollution of water bodies is relevant, mainly due to the leaching and run-off of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

(12)

allow a comprehensive assessment of all relevant as-pects of the farm-landscape system.

References

Andreoli, M., De Simone, A., Rossi, R., Tellarini, V., 1998. A procedural proposal for the evaluation of situations on the basis of a set of qualitative data, University of Pisa.

Andreoli, M., Tellarini, V., 2000. Farm sustainability evaluation Methodology and practice. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 77, 43–52. Rossi, R., Nota, D., Fossi, F., 1997. Landscape and nature production capacity of organic types of agriculture: examples of organic farms in two Tuscan landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 63, 159–171.

Plenary Meeting of the EU-Concerted Action: The Landscape and Nature Production Capacity of Organic/Sustainable Types of Agriculture. Deptartment of Ecological Agriculture, Agricultural University of Wageningen, Wageningen, 194 pp. Tellarini, V., Caporali, F., 2000. An input/output methodology to

evaluate farms as sustainable agro-ecosystems: an application of indicators to farms in central Italy. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 77, 111–123.

Van Mansvelt, J.D., Stobbelaar, D.J. (Eds.), 1997. Landscape values in agriculture: strategies for the improvement of sustainable production. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., No. 63, Special issue, 169 pp.

Gambar

Table 1Tentative evaluation of farm-landscape performance of two organic farms as compared to their non-organically managed surroundings
Table 2Tentative evaluation of farm-landscape performance of two organic farms as compared to their non-organically managed surroundings
Table 3Tentative evaluation of farm-landscape performance of two organic farms as compared to their non-organically managed surroundings
Table 4Tentative evaluation of farm-landscape performance of two organic farms as compared to their non-organically managed surroundings
+5

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

Demikian undangan dari kami dan atas perhatiannya disampaikan terima kasih.. POKJA 1 ULP Kabupaten

[r]

Summary We compared the growth of trees produced by micropropagation from nodal stem sections or callus tissue of a 20-year-old silver birch ( Betula pendula ) tree with that

Pengembangan strategi pembelajaran kompetensi membaca wayang dengan CD interaktif sebagai media pembelajaran mandiri untuk mata pelajaran bahasa Jawa SMP..

Judul dari skripsi ini adalah “Evaluasi Karakteristik Sifat Kimia Tanah Di Lahan Perkebunan Kelapa Sawit Kebun Adolina PTPN IV Serdang Bedagai Pada Beberapa Generasi Tanam”

Keengganan manusia menghambakan diri kepada Allah sebagai pencipta akan menghilangkan rasa syukur atas anugerah yang diberikan sang pencipta berupa potensi yang sempurna yang

Altruism Ratio – atau yang akhir-akhir ini sering disebut Local Wisdom - tersebut kini terancam oleh berdirinya korporasi yang akan membeli lahan mereka, karena Pegunungan

(kesempatan), dan greed (keserakahan). Sehingga pencegahan fraud sebaiknya dilakukan secara sistematik untuk mencegah tiga hal tersebut. Berdasarkan proses yang terjadi